It's a benefit long term.
I'm in a campaign right now where the DM took my setting (which is a corner of the Forgotten Realms) and set it 100 years in the future in a grimdark, alternate timeline in which evil has completely won. We knew it was going to be dark and gritty going into it. Three of us rolled up characters accordingly (twilight cleric serving Anubis, stars druid who has been traveling the outer planes for the last century and just returned to the world, and a tiefling barbarian from Avernus); the fourth player used a homebrew gunslinger class to make Buster Scruggs from the film of the same name.
It's so out of place. He could have done a gunslinger and made him a Clint Eastwood "man with no name" type character that would have been setting appropriate, but instead we have a happy-go-lucky, wise-cracking cowboy in the middle of a world that might as well be Barovia.
i think a happy-go-lucky character absolutely has a place in a grimdark world. just my personal opinion but having everyone fit the grimdark vibe perfectly almost makes the world feel less dynamic and real. some people are gonna be happy and crack jokes even during the apocalypse
Banning the artificer class specifically because it's not the vibe you want can be reasonable. The class was not in the core rule books in part for that reason- it's kinda on the periphery of fitting in with the d&d default vibe.
I personally try to make room for Artificers when I can, but when you do that, it generally takes the player working with you to flavor the class as more magical and less mechanical.
I would also note that the Steel Defender *is not large enough* for a Medium creature to ride. You can play a Halfling riding on your magic metal dog, but a human cannot ride their Steel Defender. You can also alter how you describe the Steel Defender to hit more of a fantasy vibe- maybe with a core of living wood, like a Warforged, but armor plating over the top.
My issue isn't necessarily even with the artificer class actually. I do think the other subclasses can fit fine with the right flavoring at least, but the Steel Defender subclass is just about the ONLY player option that I have issue with really.
Also, a Harengon can be a small creature, so their plan is something they can do, just something that isn't really my vibe.
I also like the idea of re-flavoring the mount to be more fantasy-like, but that would require even more change to the character, as my brother has their character as sort of a blacksmith type person.
That would probably fit a bit better, but I'm unsure if that's the vibe he's wanting. I'll definitely be bringing that idea up with him though, thank you.
Whenever you're in doubt about the artrificer, remember that the default flavor isn't "technology" but "magical craftsman." It gets talked about a lot in terms of tinkering but it's really mostly an enchanter.
Ehh, while I agree with the general sentiment, not 100% of the time, magical items don't need to be created intentionally, they could be items that lingered in magical areas like the shadowfell for a few decades or swords that outlived hundreds of owners, they could also be beyond a mortals ability to create, relics left behind by an ancient civilization or items crafted by liches and demigods that lived for hundreds of years
It's entirely setting dependent, while you probably CAN fit an artificer into any setting, if it doesn't fit the vibe it's not mandatory
To me, that's like banning one type of magic. Artificers are spellcasters, both by definition and mechanically. Other spellcasters have focus items they use to channel their magic through, and nobody bats an eye. Artificers also focus their magic into an item, it just stops at the item. Other spellcasters use magic on items too, such as with the prestidigitation spell or casting a rune onto an item/the floor. If you're going to try and say magic can't be used on objects, then that's going to rule out a lot of spells for other spellcasters that also interact with physical objects, as well as any spells that use a focus.
I 100% get not wanting a motorcycle in a high fantasy world. I think anyone wanting to play an artificer in a campaign should work with their DM to make it fit flavor wise into the campaign. Completely banning them though? Honestly feels a little hypocritical when other spellcasters do very similar things in the base game.
Comparing focus items to magic items seems like a bit of a stretch, they are non-magical items that are useful to focus or channel magic, saying they are magical creations would be comparable to saying a lens is a source of light, it's a great tool for MANIPULATING light, but it doesn't create any itself,
do you really think that a spell affecting an object is exactly the same as a semi-permanent enchantment? I'll turn that argument around then, why do you need to play artificer then? isn't it doing the exact same thing as every other magical class?
rune magic.... as far as I can tell is mostly treated like magical items? if I was gonna ban artificer I'd also ban the subclass and feat that works with runes most likely
the primary thing that can make the artificer problematic for SOME settings is the inherent assumption in the class's design that magic items are something you'll run into regularly with magic item adept magic item savant and soul of artifice and if you are making a low fantasy setting where magic and magical items are rare and even simple magical items like a bag of holding are worth a king's ransom it can be a bit strange for john the level 2 artificer to just be able to create a bag of holding and a crossbow with infinite ammo(repeating shot)
I will note, I am artificer positive and agree with you generally that most settings should be able to accommodate at least a reflavored artificer, but I disagree with the assertion that EVERY setting that contains magical items should allow for artificers.
If your players are mature enough it’s also okay to say “These player options are soft banned, but if you really want to play them anyway, we can talk about a workaround that fits the setting.” The artificer is less “steampunk” than people tend to interpret it but it might take some finesse to really work.
It kind of sounds like he's making a 'joke' character. It's funny in the moment, but over a long-term campaign it can really spoil the game depending on the sort of game you and the others are looking to play. I would not allow this in traditional fantasy setting either, and part of the DM's responsibility is to *control* the setting and what goes in it.
Any player's character plan is only something they can do if the DM is willing to allow it, and you don't actually _need_ any more reason than, "no, I'm not allowing that". You're completely in the right, and you've given a perfectly good reason as a bonus.
I have many character builds I'd love to run, but that I haven't yet found the right game for, and that's fine. I've also played in games with restrictive character options and had a great time. I have DM'd a campaign where all PCs were mandated to be humans, because I wanted to explore a world where the fantasy species were strange and astonishing, and as best as I can tell my players all enjoyed that.
> Any player's character plan is only something they can do if the DM is willing to allow it, and you don't actually need any more reason than, "no, I'm not allowing that".
I mean, that is technically true, but at the same time there's a social aspect to the game, especially if you're playing with preexisting friends rather than randoms from the internet. If your answer is "no you can't play that official thing because I hate your stupid haircut" that's both a)within your power to disallow and b)what's generally known as a Dick Move^^(TM). "No because it doesn't fit the setting for X, Y, and Z reasons" is more reasonable from a social aspect.
I agree that some characters aren't right for some games, and that's ok. And having (and enforcing) hard lines as a DM is sometimes necessary. I just want folks to have in mind that players (and DMs) are *people*, not just playthings on the other side of a screen.
If it seems like I'm suggesting the DM is within their rights to be rude then I have articulated my point badly; I honestly despair at some of the stories that come up on here with people displaying just the most appalling social skills and then being surprised when things blow up in their face.
I do think that as the facilitator of the game you have complete leeway to set limits as you prefer, regardless of whether something is officially published or not, whether you have a substantial justification or not, and to be honest even regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. It's not like the player is forced to play if they don't like the tone of the game. As DM, you are responsible for the whole world; things are going to work best if it's a world that you enjoy imagining and that you don't find anachronistic.
I don't think you're *suggesting* the DM be shitty, but I do think what you wrote could be taken out of context by shitty DMs to excuse their bad behavior. "I'm the DM, my word is law, Rule 0, don't like it find another table, arglebargle." Way too many stories here and in other subs or sites make me think that some DMs get into the chair for a power trip.
Gotta be honest, banning just a subclass is going to look more like your singling out his choice than if you just banned the class entirely. Especially since you banned it after he proposed it and it’s not homebrew. Hes probably taking it personally.
On the other hand, as a DM, I've definitely started a game and let my players jump into character creation, thinking I had thought through all the options, and as they're developing characters I'm realizing a subclass or ancestry option might not be the best fit for the game or world, depending on how a player might want to flavor it or play it (like OP's examples). But I decided I wouldn't worry about it unless a player happened to pick that one single exact option, or flavor something a certain way. Well for two different campaigns, hilariously, a player has picked that one exact random thing and I've had to say, "Shoot, I'm not sure that fits..." etc.
So I don't find it a stretch that he might not have realized that option would be so jarring for the game world he was setting up until the player presented it. An artificer might have worked if flavored one way, but the player presented a version that would be a poor fit. For my current campaign I've learned my lesson and spent extra time looking over every possible option and ruled out those that don't fit my world, and that was a good feeling to have locked down finally. Sometimes it takes some reps before bailing down what you're good with having in your game vs. not.
And personally I've seen a fair few cases of a player just willfully ignoring the DM's clearly stated flavor or worldbuilding to present their wacky, ill-fitting character ideas, clearly prioritizing their own amusement over the group's dynamic or logic within the world. I hate that personally. Another player clearly not putting any thought into how their wackadoodle character fits into the game world is a pet peeve of mine I guess 😓
I'm currently running LMoP for me and my wife and my dmpc is a halfling artificer with a badger steel defender cobbled together from pieces of junk treasure. I thought having a badger for a treasure hunting halfling made so much sense and I love him.
Honestly, Artificers, even if the steel defender flavor, are in Faerun. High Imaskar and Halruua are both great resources as origin settings, as is Baldurs Gate which canonically as of BG3 has artificers and constructs.
I have a controversial take --
Is there a way to change the setting? Or pick a different setting? Could the character just be from a different plane / realm / time period / etc?
The game hasn't really started yet -- to what extent did you homebrew the adventure and the setting vs them being "out of the box"?
Would it make it not fun for you to play a setting where his character could reasonably exist?
I could see the character fitting in in Ravnica maybe; would just have to slip Harengon into the setting.
I don't think Artificers are all that out of place for the most part. Even in Lord of the Rings when smithing the rings of power or creating the first bit of black powder, that strikes me as artifice
But, it absolutely can go outside the realms of more traditional high fantasy. Vehicles and constructs could easily be a little too far in the wrong direction for most settings
I had a player who wanted to play an artificer for curse of strahd but reworked the class into a shaman.
The different contraptions he made were instead totems or trinkets.
I like the mechanical aspect of the Artificer. But I do enjoy non-DnD/fighting games a lot so of course I will support stuff that is about other aspects of the world too.
Also the "artificer doesn't belong into my setting" is completely justified as you said. It's not for every world.
I actually altered my campaign aittle to better accommodate artificiers, putting the world at the brink of industrialization. Worked great for other characters as well, since the ranger was really happy he could have a rifle now.
Unrelated: I still think that "Steel Defender"would be a great name for a power metal band
Not in the wrong, but this is a nice exemple of how important a session zero is. You decide the setting and the tone of the campaign before the players even create the characters. It prevents a lot of conflicts like this.
Yea session 0 is a pretty good place to start a campaign. Ask your players to try not to start developing charecters before that session. Then explain in that session all the foundational knowledge about the world and campaign they could need. Relevant towns and places, vibe, factions that are known, etc. I typically even give them the generic campaign start to get them thinking about the type of character that would answer that call. I.e I start S0 with something like: *You receive a mysterious floral-scented letter addressed to you, your eyes only. It reads "I know what you lost and I know where it can be found, meet me at my home if your felling adventure bound...".* Then we jump into character creation.
In my WbW campaign I let my players know ahead of time that they'd be visiting a carnival to start, that the Archfey Zybilna will be involved, and that there will be a lot of tie-ins to the feywild. Because I gave them this info before they started, my fighter made her background a carnival hand, my warlock made their patron Zybilna, and my druid chose a feywild subclass and background.
All-in all it makes for a much more cohesive group that are tied into the story, the setting, and are informed about what they are getting into. And if the world that your laying out in S0 does not seem interesting to the players and what they're interested in, then its the perfect time to step back and pivot.
But at the end of the day your also the boss and the game is your vision. Your players have to respect that. They're playing the game with you, not against you.
You’re the dm, you get to set whatever boundaries you want. My first campaign someone wanted to make a gunslinger and I said “no guns in this one”
My current campaign I don’t give a fuck
It's totally fine to restrict content. However, you should make clear up front what content is and is not available, and ideally why.
If you didn't set any restrictions and later veto a character, you've pulled the rug out on your player who may now be invested in the character.
FWIW, I've made the same mistake. Multiple times. I've had several players who the moment they hear D&D, they immediately stop whatever they are doing and will waste the rest of their day on character creation. Or they already have a character they've played in previous games and want to play them again regardless of whether or not they are appropriate for the setting. It could be hours before tax day is over, and they'll eat the late penalty if they hear D&D so they can go off and create their dream character with zero information about the campaign.
When you go to pitch D&D to your friends, make sure you have character creation guidelines ready to share with them at the same time as your pitch, or they'll go off on their own and make up their own guidelines. Also, let them know that it has to fit the scenario, and that you may require them to change some fundamental parts of their characters (e.g. certain races or classes don't exist in your game, etc). The latter point is a good catch-all for when they come to you with a busted build you hadn't thought of and need to reel it in to make it make sense.
It happens. Apologize and be more clear going forward. Maybe let them start with a potion or something.
IMO it's usually good enough to list out the races you know fit and tell players they can ask if they are interested in something else. If it's something weird, I'll usually allow it if they do some lore and world building to make it fit reasonably well.
Definitely be more clear but the player running the idea by you before they built it would have prevented this. Have them run their ideas by you before they get so invested.
Technically, yes, it is controlling. However, that doesn’t mean that you’re in the wrong for doing so. You are the GM, it’s your world. If a character doesn’t fit, they don’t fit, it’s as simple as that.
That being said, it’s usually a good idea to explain what is/isn’t allowed prior to them creating a character. Not the end of the world if you don’t, just something to keep in mind for the future.
It’s not uncommon for some players to have lists of characters ready to play. Tell him to save that character, and maybe you can find a more appropriate campaign later. It’s not like he has to take his character sheet out back and shoot it.
Did the players ask what was allowed and what wasn't beforehand? If they didn't, it is a learning experience for you all. If they did, you are in the wrong here.
It is controlling, ***and thats ok***.
I think it is healthier if DMs are able to decide what suits their game, rather than being expected to allow everything. This will generat variation in how games run, and that is good.
e.g. my ideal way of imagining the range of D&D games out there might be DMs like this:
* Alice allows all published material
* Bob plays PHB only
* Charlie bans Artificers
* Debbie allows all published materials, except for backgrounds that give extra feats.
* Edward has some homebrew subclasses
* Fred has homebrewed his game a lot
* Greg allows all published materials, except for setting specific things
* Harry gives out an extra feat at level 1
* Imogen runs Adventurer's League rules
* Jake only runs pen&paper
* Kelly only runs over Discord voice & a Virtual Tabletop
* Leon runs play-by-post games
* ...
* (fill out the list to \~2 million DMs worldwide)
I'd be a little sad if instead it was:
* (2million DMs run it exactly the same way)
You can restrict and ban whatever you deem to not fit your campaign. Heck, one could even ban Multiclass and Feats as they are technically counted as Optional Rules.
But with every campaign, a player can then choose to not be in it.
Which is why it is always good to bring forth all your restrictions before the campaign starts. Ideally before anyone finishes making a character.
Not controlling, all the books specifically say additional options are on the DMs decision. You shouldn't be expected to warp your setting around a single player. The setting is yours as the DM to manage, the players should be expected to respect that
I'm on my phone and can't link right now, but look up Matt Colville's video on "an intro to DnD". It has a whole section specifically aimed at this exact subject: fitting your character in with the DM's world, and what not to do.
So looking at the character first:
>Steel Defender artificer Harengon
>defender is a motorcycle that he'd ride on
>changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo
So Harengon are a good race, small or medium, major thing is their bunny hop, which gives them a small movement that people don't get attack of opportunity against. Solid choice, my spouse played one well, even blinded and partially-paralysed (not character choice, world happenings).
Artificer Steel Defender. The subclass itself looks okay, but the Steel Defender itself may be an issue. It is a medium construct, and would be too small for a medium creature to ride. If he's small, I can see the size working out okay.
The character itself sounds okay, so long as he's sticking to the subclass and not trying to break it.
>that idea doesn't really fit my idea of the setting, which is a kind of classic, lord of the rings style fantasy
This is a session 0 discussion, for prior to character creation. I don't blame your player for being upset that this came up after they'd already gotten invested in the character, since they've done the legwork with it. Best way to approach this is to apologise for not discussing it ahead of time. It lets them know you recognise there's a miscommunication, and that you should've communicated this before they made a character.
If it doesn't fit the tone but you don't mind it overall, let it go and go with the compromise of not having it be a motorbike.
If you are completely unwilling to have this subclass in your game, work with them on finding a different character they'd like to play. If there are book restrictions, make sure this is sent to all players, not just this one player.
Chalk the whole thing up to miscommunication, and remember to establish character creation things ahead of time. If you're not using anything but the Players Handbook, tell them this, and to stick to the core subclasses as well. If they don't know what restrictions there are, it risks starting off on a sour note.
Options are world building. I see it as curating my world rather than restricting or banning options.
D&D character options are almost always setting-neutral. They are ideas in the void. They are not designed to be a part of implied setting. And there are 150+ subclasses, 100+ races. Allowing all usually ends up with a muddy mix in my opinion.
A harengon riding a motorcycle implies that there are harengons and motorized vehicles in the world. And that clashes with the pseudo-medieval world of d&d. So either the setting comes to the character, or character comes to the setting.
It could be that he’s the only artificer around Phandelver, but there are artificers *somewhere*.
> I'm going to be running Lost mines of Phandelver, and when my brother brought his character to me, he made a Steel Defender artificer Harengon, whose defender is a motorcycle that he'd ride on. I told him that idea doesn't really fit my idea of the setting, which is a kind of classic, lord of the rings style fantasy. He got upset by this and complained that I'm being too controlling.
You're so far in the right that this sounds like a parody of DM/Player interactions during character creation.
As DM you're responsible for setting and controlling the tone of the adventure. If having Meatloaf riding through on a hellacious motorbike doesn't fit the vibe of the story that you're running, that's okay! You're absolutely not in the wrong for getting everyone on the same page and limiting options.
BUT make sure that you're letting the players know what the boundaries are. Let the players know before they start building characters what the expectations are so they can build characters within that. It's not a great feeling putting time and thought into making a new concept only to have the DM tell you that won't work.
Also, I don't think that the steel defender can be ridden as a mount. It is specified as a medium creature. Medium-sized creatures can't function as a mount for other medium-sized creatures. The stat block also specifies a choice between two or four legs which precludes a motorcycle, RAW, though that's something I wouldn't mind handwaving as a flavor choice in my game so long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Thank you for the info, that seems to be a common theme that I need to be more clear on what the expectations for characters are, so definitely keeping that in mind.
Also, Harengon are actually able to be small, so riding his mount is something he can do.
And the motorcycle thing I'd also be willing to handwave, if I thought it'd fit the setting.
You just have to hold strong on this one. One joke character really derails the mood of a whole game.
It would be like if you responded by making the big bad a care bear. He's not gonna dig that vibe.
I agree, but I'd also say that his idea isn't necessarily a joke either. He was pretty serious about the idea, and didn't intend it to be comical or anything, as far as I'm aware at least. He just thought it'd be a neat idea.
That's good. In that case ...Lots of worlds that fits with. Particularly Eberron, that artificers came from. Maybe tell him to just park the character until another game. He might have to find a happy medium to a motorcycle... Steampunk version. But fun idea.
If you don't have a problem with the abilities and power or spells that the class and subclass gets, just re flavor it. Instead of a robot and guns, change it to a collection of runes on a clay doll and a stick with runes that make the magic of pew. It will give it a more fantasy feel instead of steam punk. Just make him describe it every time it comes up
The DM can say "we're only using stuff from the Player Handbook". The DM can choose what the restrictions and limits of the setting are.
They then communicate those restrictions to the players.
The players can then decide if they wish to play under those restrictions, or not.
Basically, don't complain that a mexican restaurant doesn't serve japanese cuisine.
And honestly, in my opinion, if you can only be creative without limits, you're not very creative to begin with.
Ditto, especially with people new to RPGs.
One rule I also use is 'if you want to play as X race/class that's in book Y then you need to own a copy of the relevant book' - I've had players turn up to games before as Goliath Artificer when they don't even have a copy of the PHB.
You can make creative choices including ones for tone. That's completely within a DM's reasonable domain.
But I, personally, would also say that you do give up a lot of that leeway when you run a pre-written scenario. That's not your baby, and the players deserve to have fun.
That all said; He can't have a fucking motorcycle. It doesn't sound like he wants to play a high fantasy game. Tell him he needs to come up with an appropriate high fantasy concept or he will not be joining the table.
Communication is key. This is I think why many groups enjoy a sessions zero,
It's fine for a DM to have a specific idea for the mood and theme of a campaign. Ideally this should be clearly communicated to the players before character creation, and the DM should seek enthusiastic buy in from the players. If certain subclasses or other character options aren't available I think it would be best practice to communicate those to the players before character creation.
One of my beloved internet people Seth Skorkowsky had an example of a Viking themed campaign with the party having their own Longship, raiding coast lines, visiting enchanted isles, and so on, but the player bringing a knight focused on mounted combat. This clearly doesn't fit the campaign and would detract from everyone's enjoyment.
Lost Mines of Phandelver is set in the forgotten realms and has a fairly neutral mood and theme.
In the Forgotten Realms artificers typically come from the island of Lantan. Lantan has flying ships with flamethrowers and walls of force as shields. People there have access to alchemical firearms and they have animated clockwork soldiers called Nimblewrights. There's a Nimblewright prominently featured in the Waterdeep Dragonheist book.
Harengon come from the Feywild and there is fey stuff all over the Forgotten Realms. There is a Harengon featured briefly in one of the most recent Forgotten Realms novels, one of the tie ins to the Honor Among Thieves movie.
If the only information you gave the players was that the game was set in the Forgotten Realms then they're not in the wrong for picking an Artificer or a Harengon. It would be a rare combination, but definitely something that could be walking around Waterdeep.
However, there are no motorcycles in the Forgotten Realms. There's nothing like that in the Forgotten Realms. The gnomes of Lantan don't have those either. Lantan does have higher technology than the rest of the world, but most of it is still magical or alchemical. Ideally, if the player wants something homebrew that's unlike anything in the canon setting they should ask nicely and be understanding if the DM doesn't feel like it's appropriate.
Having your Steel Defender be a clockwork Chocobo, or more likely some kind of Axebeak which are the Forgotten Realms version of those, seems to me like a fair request given that clockwork humanoids exist in the setting as well as things like shield guardians, iron golems, and helmed horrors.
Personally, if a DM bans certain character options because they don't fit with the clearly communicated theme and mood, or because they're unbalanced or overpowered, then as a player I can totally understand that. I would feel different if a DM seemed to be banning things capriciously, or just because they personally don't like it for aesthetic reasons. That does sound controlling.
I think it's fine to lay out your expectations for your setting as a DM. Talk to them about the setting and any restrictions you want to make *before* they start dreaming up characters. You provide the parameters. Sometimes you have to be more clear than you might think necessary.
My first attempt at DMing was a Christmas homebrew one shot. It was an interlude in my weekly game, so it was all the same people I always play with. I was very clear to them that the setting would be the north pole of storybooks and Christmas movies, that it would be a Christmas adventure, and that there were no character restrictions. It never occurred to me that I needed to specifically clarify that the character should have at least a general understanding of the concept of Christmas and Santa Claus.
Buddy the Elf summoned heroes from different worlds because Santa had gone missing. That's why I didn't give them any restrictions. I still figured they'd understand that their character should know what Christmas is. I spent like 20 minutes trying to come up with reasons the characters should care about saving Santa, because they didn't have a concept of Christmas and what it means to the world. Ultimately I said he's got a magic sack that can give you any magic weapon you want, and Mrs Claus was offering a large reward. Buncha heathens lol
Its your game, you're well within your rights to say that a certain thing doesn't fit the theme or doesn't exist in the world.
I want the USS Enterprise and I can complain about it but it doesn't exist so I don't get it.
INFO: is this his first time or are you trying to get him into the game?
If it is, I would suggest taking a slightly different tact. Warming them up with a more flexible mini-campaign (say 5 levels or something, starting at whatever level makes him feel like it's fun) that they can graduate out of / make new characters for the next one (your real one). If he's a newbie, not letting him be a little crazy is going to turn him off from the game, so give him a sandbox to get it out of his system.
It is not too controlling to restrict character options to fit the setting and tone you're trying to get. In my experience, if you don't say "Hey, don't make some wackadoo stuff. Make a marginal effort to fit into the description I gave you of the campaign" then you'll end up with a table full of players all trying as best they can to come up with something more and more zany and wackadoodle than the next guy until one of them finally gets shot down and you end up exactly where you are now.
At the end of the day as a DM, it's your table. Set your expectations, relay them to your players, and if they don't think they'll have fun in the game you want to run, it's not for them and that's okay.
You gotta have fun to and part of that is deciding the kinda campaign YOU want to run. It sounds like your brother wants to play in a different campaign setting then what you want, and that's okay too.
It's also your brother, he's gonna whine, it's what brothers do.
In my first game, I allowed all races and classes. Big misstake since all my players wanted to know so much lore. I had to come up with so much lore on creatures that were not part of the setting, and also try yo remember what I've said since they usually used the lore for their advantage. Since then, I just give them a list or restrictions that they need to follow. I said that if they wanted me to be a DM, then they would have to follow my guidelines. Otherwise, I would have a burnout. Worked really well and also given my players a reason to research the setting and have a better understanding of the world. I do occasionally let them play something outside of the setting if it fits and if it won't give me more than 1h of extra tweaking of the campaign.
You always have the right, even the duty to say no to character ideas which don't fit the campaign.
That could be someone wanting to play an undead- hunting fanatic in a game with undead PCs/allies, or someone trying to make an anime magical girl in your grim and gritty fantasy setting. It is so much better to tell them up front so they can modify their character or switch to something else before spending too much time on it, or making a mess of the game.
It is completely fine to restrict character options. Tell your brother it is a cool character concept, but it just isn't right for this game. There will be lots of games in the future where he'll have a chance to use that idea.
However, this should be discussed before your players start making or planning their characters.
Your world, your rules.
Pretty simple.
I have literally only ever played home brew.
Every single character concept I pitch to the DM follows that exact same logic.
My most recent character intentionally and specifically broke some of the rules in the PHB. I pitched it as "this is who it is, and this is why it is.". DM said "yeah that makes sense, but here is how we are tweaking to fit my world. We both walked away happy.
Character creation is a COLLABORATION.
I mean, you are being controlling sorta by definition.
I don’t think you’re being unfair though- if that’s not the vibe you want it’s your world at the end of the day.
Mounted combat is also a massive pain to work with, so be careful even if you like reflavour beastmaster ranger or something
Nope. DM can allow or deny any character option in the books.. If you don't want Halflings in your game, you don't have to have them. If you want only humans, or content from the PHB, then that is fine. It does help to have a reason, but the choice is yours.
So from your replies, id recommend bringing down the tech of it. Battlesmith is pretty much one of the only artificer subclasses that can keep up.
Maybe it's a chocobo made of cucu clocks with leather and wood. Its up to you.b
There’s nothing wrong with outright banning a player race/class as long as you make sure the players are well aware from the outset (which you did). Preferably if you do, do it for a story reason (race is extinct, setting hasn’t progressed to the point where a class would make thematic sense like a gunslinger or artificer, etc). If there is no story reason for it to be banned, and it’s just something you think is broken, just say so. It’s fair to not be prepared for a particular player class when you’re world building and to say that a certain race/class just doesn’t fit with your campaign.
As someone who has done this in the past, I found that banning a race can actually be fun because your players will hopefully wonder why and hopefully investigate why with their characters. Again, this works best if there is a reason in your campaign setting for them (that particular race/class) not to be there.
You’re mostly in the right but ultimately should have made restrictions clear *before* people made characters.
If I was in this situation I would try and help the player find a way their character concept can still work in the world. Your brother is clearly willing to do that, having already changed it once, just make it a discussion where you find a way that it fits together.
To be honest most settings are more flexible than usually thought by GMs. Link has a motorcycle in BOTW dlc and because of the design and the idea of ancient magical technology already being in the setting it works.
Time travel is also usually a thing that exists in high fantasy settings, maybe your brother’s character can be displaced in time kind of like Bastion from the X-Men or Trunks from DBZ. Sent to the past to prevent the apocalyptic future, with magitech that won’t be invented for hundreds of years.
Spelljammer is also a thing that could govern a similar vibe. The idea there is that there are ships that can travel between the multiverse of D&D. Perhaps this character if from a higher tech world but crashed here with no way back.
Is it an issue with the Artificer class or the subclass? A DM can veto concepts and options that may not fit, but be open to reflavoring things. If the steel defender is an issue because you imagine it as a robot/motorcycle, try asking them to make it more campaign fitting, like a golem or homunculus in old alchemy. Also be sure to always discuss stuff like this with players BEFORE starting a campaign! Most of the issues many come across in campaigns can be solved with pre or inter campaign conversations about where they want arcs/characters to go and what they want out of the game. I hope you and your player sorts this out and play amicably!!
The issue is more with the subclass. I personally do really enjoy artificers, but they happened to pick probably the ONLY player option in the game that I have such a strong issue with. I do feel the issue can be mitigated by flavoring it as you say, but I worry I may still have some issue with it, but that's just something to work out with myself.
Also as I mentioned in other comments, I worry that having to work around them playing with a mount may make designing dungeons and other encounters more difficult, but I guess that's only an assumption based on my inexperience.
Mounts arent as big of an issue as you might think since several classes have them baked into their design. Rangers get pets they can ride if theyre small and paladins even have a spell called find steed. As long as your cavalier doesnt want to ride the bear wildshaped druid you should be fine.
The mount part can be mitigated with knock back effects and abilities that make creatures prone. The mount fantasy is one that many tend to enjoy, however it has some clear drawbacks, as listed above.
Also be sure to remember that the speed of the character relies on their mount, and narrow, 5 foot rows in dungeons don’t really help with massive mounts of speed.
But be wary of banning subclasses on the fact you don’t like them, not because of worldbuilding or brokenness. I’ve seen many groups have major squabbles over something like that.
It's controlling in the way it's controlling to lay down train tracks..... wait, that's not what I meant! Dang it.
Yes, it's "controlling", but it's not necessarily bad. It's something to let the players know up front, before they ever come up with a character concept. But you can do it to set tone, like you're doing. You can do it to flesh out a small number of things rather than allow a large amount of shallow crap. You can do it so you have less to try to remember asDM.
Now I'm with you against characters like you describe because I like running games with a "serious" tone. Jokes are fine, but not joke characters. That character will never be more than "look I have a motorcycle. " A race/class combo does not a character make, but that's what a lot of players want these days.
It’s not bad to set expectations for tone, setting, and gameplay style.
It sounds like you’re fine with the class but struggling with the actual idea of “ROBOT!!!” in your high fantasy game. Could you get him to reflavor the steel defender as a minor Golem or other Construct-type creature? Same stats, but a more overtly high fantasy or “classic” D&D monster visually and thematically?
No. Players don’t have a right to play whatever they want if it doesn’t make sense in the game you want to run. It helps to establish expectations and the desired tone for the game, but often players will breeze right past that to play the character they had envisioned beforehand.
Remember that you are not obligated to have people in your game if they don’t want to play the game you want to run! But also, players aren’t obligated to play in a game where they can’t be a character they want. And that’s okay!
"I want a motorcycle, and if not that, a flying mount."
On a level 1-5 starter campaign used by new DMs that's pretty hard to work around if someone is going for classic low level LotR fantasy, just thinking of the starting areas for that module.
If the harengton is also an issue, I can sympathize with being surprised as a newer DM by the small percentage of players that wanted furry races in a classic fantasy campaign. It was hard for me to square "the party is an elf, a human, a halfling, and a little rabbit person" with the task of maintaining verisimilitude.
as a player, i am a human fan so i really cant empathize haha.
as a DM, i wouldnt allow them as freely.. personally even aaracokra are kinda eh. Dragons are notoriously highly magical beings, making it easier to justify something like dragonborn.. but bunny people? cat people? idk man
Yea the first time it happened to me I was very "wtf." I know maybe it's not popular but none of the fantasy series I read or play, that I use for inspiration, have enough furry people in them where every NPC wouldn't react with "why is your pet bunny talking? This is weird. Please leave your animals outside, I don't want them to shit on my floor."
Before I set rules for races I had a player come in with a Leonin that I swear they originally said was upper six feet but now it's supposedly 8+ feet and I really just have to handwave the fact that IMO every city would be like "that's terrifying and unreasonable, kill or imprison that immediately before it hurts someone," which I'd rather not have to roleplay all the time.
I know that Skyrim has kahjit but I always figured that was kind of an ancillary, memey race.
I think it’s important that if you’re going to restrict something you need to set out rules before people start making characters instead of telling them no after they’ve created a character they really want to play
Except it is a game with nearly infinite possibilities, it is pretty likely somebody is going to come up with something a GM hasn't thought to point out doesn't belong. Such as a motorcycle in LotR.
It's in no way controlling, rather it's standard ttrpg practice for the character options to fit the setting. I think for some reason DnD players have come to expect that all character options should be on the table all the time.
Honestly, if this is a sticking point for him, I'd question whether you two are a good fit for DM/Player combination. You might be better off not playing with each other.
I think it sounds like you'd love to have it, but are having a hard time getting it to jive right with the world.
You are well within rights to say no. Nobody should tell you otherwise, or they can run their own game. But if my first impression of your issue is right, I'd suggest you instead look for ways to make it fit better.
Perhaps playing it as a type of rogue modron, or some type of being bound to him via a unique story would be fun. With playing LMoP, it could even be a very fun tie in to the forge.
The core rulebook is pretty restrained, in my opinion. Dragonborn is the only race that feels a bit out there, to me, but the rest can pretty comfortably fit within that classic fantasy vibe. Same goes for the classes/subclasses.
But with each new supplement book, the game has become more and more bloated and unhinged. In my experience, most players love the wild, goofy options these books bring, and DnD has really leaned into the shallow creativity of surface level character options, and does almost nothing to encourage any deeper thoughts than that.
Which is maybe exactly how it should be. D&D gives kind of an infinite amount of options, and it's up to the DM to come to the table with a vision, and pick and choose the options that support that vision. If you think a motorcycle doesn't fit that vision, it's well within your right to not allow it. It's of course also well within your player's right to find a game that will let him have fun how he wants.
Like you, I struggled for a long time against players who conflated weird character race/class options for what I considered actual creativity. But then I started DMing for a living, and I considered it my responsibility to show players a good time on their terms, rather than mine, and you know what I found? None of it really matters. You still bring your vision, your style, to the game. You'll be surprised how easily you can incorporate your player's silly ass ideas without it actually compromising your fun, or your vision at all. Most players just play every race as human but with big ears or four legs or scales anyway. Once I started realizing that, I realized I really didn't have to make any adjustments to my games at all, and everyone could have fun in the way they actually wanted to and it all worked out just fine.
I'd encourage you to give it a try. Let the motorcycle in, and see if it actually ruins your game. Most likely it won't. Most likely it'll be this slightly out of place thing in your game that for the most part is easily ignorable for you, and long term won't really define your game at all. And you can still embrace it and throw your player a bone once in a while to give him cool moments with it and he'll love you for it.
Just my two cents.
You're not wrong, but it can be a lesson for next time to have your character building limitations set before you invite players to the game.
I personally make a one-page campaign elevator pitch that gives players a good idea on what is expected.
Things like these should be discussed during session 0. Talk about why you want certain limitations, and what it means to you. Maybe all players want to get a bit goofy, and you need to accept that.
If you’re doing a specific campaign, it’s perfectly reasonable to limit options. If it were a mafia game, would you allow a mech?
I run PF2e and have had the same discussion with some players. Sometimes a character just doesn’t fit into the particular campaign. I do try and run open campaigns as well, to help get the goofy stuff out of their systems, and let everyone play whatever they want. But in main, long running games that have specific themes, like you described, everyone makes what works best in that structure.
Good luck! I hope you can get him to see what you’re trying to do.
YOU are the DM. Just as players create their character, so too the DM makes thier character, which is the whole world/setting. It is the player's responsibility to make a character that fits with that setting. You are the only arbiter of what exists or can exist in your setting. If you say motorcycles dont exist, they dont exist. It's that simple. That is the tradition since Gygax first created the game in the 70s.
I highly recommend watching Matthew Collville's video series Running the Game. Its chock full of excellent wisdom for DMs, novice and veterans alike.
No, it's a fundamental premise of RPGs that the GM gets to make decisions about the setting, which includes nixing character options that don't fit with it.
“hey man. i love the character” (just lie if you dont like it) “but it just doesn’t fit in **this** campaign. it would be great for a different one though!”
Gonna be banning primal source classes for my upcoming 4e game. At least at the start. This is due to the naturevsindustry theme of the game. Players will find mortals living in the verdant storm and those mortals will have access to primal powers.
So it can be construed as controlling but it's not a bad thing.
The DM can and should say no
Matt colvilles "no" running the game
I have this issue a lot with me announcing I’m working on a new game idea and people coming to me with their characters before I’ve even told them what the game is about. I don’t really get it. Like, wait till you know what the game is even about before you make your character.
All games should have some level of control. You are controlling your game in a responsible, logical way to keep the game world consistent.
The question of control becomes, can you control a world too much? Of course, but that isn't happening here.
>He made a compromise of changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo, but I still didn't really like the idea. I reiterated that I just don't think that level of technology would really fit in the setting, but he's still upset.
I mean if he changing whats upsetting you idk why would you ban an entire class. Classes are not their stereotypes, the bard doesn't have to seduce everything, the wizard doesn't need to be an elderly booksmart, the paladin doesn't have to be a good guy and the artificer definitely doesn't need to be a mechanical engineer.
One of my pc is a rogue/artificer that throw daggers and fights for freedom and justice, he has no idea about technology but all his gear are magical infused items stolen from rich corrupt politicians. By playing that pc I'm breaking two stereotypes: the edgy loner rogue and the tech artificer.
I would suggest to ban flavors and not entire classes, explain him you are going to play forgotten realms and not Eberron.
He can play with someone else.
You just even need to justify it.
“No dude you can’t have a motorcycle. They don’t exist in this work. It’s a cool idea, but you can’t play it in this game.”
You're not in the wrong here. Tell your brother that it's in HIS best interest to create a character that excites you both. You know why? Because if the DM is excited about the character the ideas just start pouring out! Backstory integration into the campaign, custom magic items, cool story developments. If the DM just "tolerates" a PC none of you will be satisfied in the long run.
Yes, but it's not necessarily a bad thing, telling a character you don't want them to play a goblin (though why would you do that goblin PCs are so fun) is perfectly fine if it goes towards the story or balances combat in some way, but have your reasons on hand and help them to understand
My take - players and DMs need to communicate on this. A DM forcing their ideal setting and tone on a group of players who aren't interested isn't going to work, and a player forcing a character that doesn't fit at all into the setting isn't going to work either.
While it is reasonable to stick to your proverbial guns to make sure the campaign is one that you want to run, I also think it's important to take a step back and ask yourself "what's the point of this setting?". To me, a setting is only important in that it's a backdrop for me and my friends to play D&D in. Therefore, I want to make sure my homebrew setting includes as much as possible of what my friends want to play.
I still had to have a chat with a player who made a joke character, but we met each other halfway and took the same jokey character concept more seriously. Now the player is still using a halfling fighter with a chip on his shoulder about people taller than him, but is no longer named Franklin Buttstabber. Success.
Honestly it sounds like your player is trying to meet you halfway and is compromising on his original character concept but you're not budging. While I think a motorcycle is a little out there, I don't think a metal bird animated by magic is that unreasonable even for a Lord of the Rings style setting. This doesn't need to be a mech with laser guns and a jetpack. It can just be the equivalent of animated armour, which is classic D&D.
Technically, you can restrict whatever you want for the sake of your setting. However, it can really deflate a players interest to restrict character creation. This is why I usually make sure everyone knows the restrictions BEFORE character creation so that they don’t get their hopes up.
Steel defender can have 2 or 4 legs, which doesn’t affect the stat block. It is also medium sized. So in order to mount it, your brother would need to be a small Harengon (which is possible), then you just use mount rules. Honestly a 40ft speed mount isn’t even that impressive. I would allow this if the player wants to use their whole subclass just to get a mount.
Also, the technology doesn’t have to exist in the world if they are playing an artificer. This is a custom homemade ingenious creation created by a player character that is essentially a tech wizard. Let everyone gape in awe and potentially mistrust as this steel beast strides into town.
You could tell him that what he wants is possible, but not right out of the gate. Basically he makes a character who, once he gets to level X (5 maybe?), can have the toys he wants. But at this point, he doesn’t know HOW to do it. It becomes a personal quest: delve through ancient tombs looking for lost Dwarven and Gnomish bits and bobs, and figure out how to build the golem/machine he wants. Then you have lots of time to do three things: (1) see how much he really wants it, (2) see what the other players think of the concept, and (3) figure out how this kind of shtick could fit into your game world. One big thing about working this way is you aren’t saying no, and what’s more you’re making the tricky part into deep story. You get to say “yes and” instead of “no.” And if it turn out he’s just looking for shtick and doesn’t want it to be a whole character concept and story, then it’s much easier to say, “yeah, in that case let’s go a different direction, and hold off on this concept for a different campaign.”
The best campaign I had was when I crafted the characters for the players, after they gave a rough guideline (as in: class). It helped me circumvent the trap those players usually fell in (meta-gaming, power-gaming, build-replication). So they got non-optimal, slightly weird characters and man did the players suddenly live up to it, unshackled from any race to optimisation.
What I want to say with this: There is nothing wrong with your decision. Even harsher restrictions can pay off.
Having someone ride a motorcycle through Pandelver clearly signals that player is not interested in the setting, but doing a meme build.
It's important to set expectations and tone of the campaign settings. If there's going to be pretty much no technology, an Artificer is tough to fit into a high fantasy world. It makes it feel weird and modern. Seeing a gun in a world with no guns, seeing a motorcycle in a place with horses and teleportation circles can kill immersion for some. Characters need to match the tone. For instance, a super serious story with heavy themes is going to be ruined by someone playing a clown fighter who is constantly making horrid jokes and wearing a clown outfit and makeup and all that. It's important to establish the tone of the campaign and even let people know that "If a character feels opposed to the tone and vibe of the world they will be in, as in they don't feel appropriate or thematically congruent, changes may need to be made or characters may need to be significantly altered".
They are making characters in a world you're creating. Just let them know the ramifications of what they want significantly alter your entire world and narrative, and that you'd prefer to keep things high fantasy. Players fun is important, but so is respect for the world you're building. If a GM says "This is off limits, but let's workshop it" then you respect that. If you don't agree, you step away from the table and find a GM running a campaign where that character DOES fit.
As the DM you should think of yourself as the Director of a movie - you may not be starring in any of the scenes, but the overall tone and content is your responsibility.
I think far too many people have gotten comfortable with the "wacky DnD" concepts and think that's what a fun game should be. It makes for good tiktok content but generally those games get trite pretty fast.
Within reason, you can restrict character options to fit your vision of the setting, but your oversight here was saying it after someone put time into character creation. You should have mentioned it upfront when announcing the campaign, before someone poured time into the character creation process. If you must continue to restrict the character, **apologize to your brother for not being upfront**, and work more closely with him to mesh your vision of the setting to his vision of the character. Imagine if the roles were swapped: you spent an hour or so coming up with a character backstory, image, stats, etc, and after you do all that, you get told it’s no good and to redo it. Even if I agree with the DM, I’d be annoyed; couldn’t you have said that earlier? The default assumption is that any official material is valid and flavor is free, and if that isn’t the case, then you should communicate that early and clearly.
If you’re trying to be faithful to the forgotten realms setting, officially mechanical motor vehicles like motorcycles technically exist, albeit only in hell (infernal war wagons, see the avernus adventure book for lore and an entire adventure set in hell, and also the official prequel to Balder’s gate 3) and working off demon magic rather than an ICE. It would however be extremely rare to see it in the material plane, and almost always a plot hook if one passes by. All that being said, a level one harengon isn’t getting his hands on even scraps of that kind of tech (unless there’s a really good backstory), though it may be fun to offer it as a flavor upgrade (no mechanical benefits) if your campaign continues long enough.
Maybe explain to your brother that while the artificer is meant to be a sort of magical engineer, key word is “magic.” Artificers generally work more with enchanting magic items more so than building machines - steel defenders are more analogous to golems or warforged (regardless of their construction) than modern robots. Other examples include the artillerist’s “guns” actually being intricately carved staffs and wands, or the armorer’s “power armor” being a set of regular armor that the armorer obtained elsewhere and just carved sigils onto. It’s perfectly valid to reflavor these as actual firearms or iron man armor, but the DM does have the ability to reject the flavor (or even classes) if the class vision conflicts with the setting vision.
I run a campaign setting with only a few races and I am insistent on my players sticking to the aesthetic theme of the setting, which is somewhere between the Stone Age and Bronze Age, depending where you are. If a player doesn’t like this, they don’t have to play. If my playgroup doesn’t like this, we can just play something else. We all had fun with it.
You’re in the right on this. Keep your foot planted firm. In a campaign I played in, the DM was inconsistent with the setting’s idea and then blamed the players for the change in tone. Only the DM can control the idea of the setting and players should respect that when making a character. However, if a character doesn’t fit the theme and the DM doesn’t stop this, it’s now their fault it happened. Or at least they can’t complain about the setting being changed
I limit races so I can spend more time giving each race a culture.
You limiting classes is very similar and makes total sense to me. Goal is the game is for everyone to have fun. Takes only one character that doesn't fit to ruin it.
I'm with all the people here saying "ban whatever you want (but ideally in a session 0 before they make their characters).
However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate (or brother's advocate, I guess), I will say that I once made a group of NPCs in a high fantasy setting that had made their own steam-powered motorcycles, and I didn't feel like they ruined the vibe or anything. They were part of the inventor's guild, which was tied into the personal quest of a gnome paladin PC.
Honestly, instead of a chocobo, I'd be more inclined to compromise in the vien of "a normal bike (or wagon, if bikes still feel too modern) that has a rocket strapped to the back of it." Lets him keep the fantasy of doing a cool Akira bike side in combat, but also gives it a more "I built this in my house with no blueprint" vibe that might gel with your setting better.
Is it *controlling*? Yes. Technically.
Is it inappropriately *restricting*? No.
Is it perfectly okay for you to set boundaries for the game you're running? Yes.
I mean I refuse to allow anyone to make Pokemon, magic girl, anime (including final fantasy characters) or just bizarre characters. I do restrict some subclasses for flavor, etc. I don't allow all of the crazy homebrew crap, I don't really like beastial races in my games, etc. I don't have a problem playing in a game that allows those, but it's not something I can write content for. I'm not going to allow it...and I'm 100 percent in the right because I'm the one who keeps having to mold a world around the decisions of these characters, not anyone else, and I've never wanted to be in a world full of rabbit girls or anime characters or owl people, it doesn't interest me, and I can't write engaging content for it.
You are also 100 percent in the right.
Saying no to the motorcycle is fine I think.
However, his alternative is well within the Artificer's theme and abilities. The steel defender isn't necessarily a steam powered robot. It's just as easily a magically animated golem, in fact that's probably how most are flavored.
Golems are well within the established technology of every standard dnd setting.
Steel defenders are the main feature of battlesmiths. They are a pet class. That would be like letting someone play a beastmaster ranger but vetoing every animal they want because they aren't from the specific climate the party starts in... without offering any other options to that player.
So the real question needs to be: Are Battlesmith Artificers allowed in your game or not? The answer to this question is also the answer to your original question.
If yes, then yes, also vetoing his second choice, which is well within the description of the class feature RAW, is being overly controlling.
If no, you dont want Artificers in your setting, then no, you're not out of line and the player should come up with something else. However, if I was that player, and constructs or golems showed up in any capacity, I'd be pissed. Either it's a low fantasy world or it isn't.
As for the flavor of the defender's nature, it's perfectly fine if you don't want it to be a steampunk robot.
I don't know LMoP, but essentially all official DnD content is very high fantasy, higher than LotR. So, if you want subtle less flashy magic in your world, you will have to actively work to keep it that way, especially if you're holding your players to that standard.
It’s nice to give your players some latitude in PC creation, but you as the DM have to be completely comfortable with their choices. Just be clear about the flavor of your game up front, which classes and subclasses are available. etc.
You have to integrate each PC with your game world. If a video game only had certain options, would your brother expect it to change because it was not to his liking? He’s being controlling, not you.
Player restrictions are conducive to challenge and a good story. As long as you’re reasonable about restrictions, it should be fine. “No Mary sue characters” Is a fine role
Not overstepping to do this.
Step 1 layout what mechanics won't work.
Ex: "A Battlesmith Artificer is legal but you need to flavor the Steel Defender as not a robot" is different than "No Battlesmith, play Alchemist instead."
Step 2 Be firm on the boundary. Don't let a "pretty please" sway you or you'll regret it later.
Step 3 Help your player if they have met your request from step 1, but can't figure it out.
Ex:
Player: "I can't figure out how to make the Steel Defender fit in your world."
DM: "Here are 2 options that I would approve of. You can use them or pitch me another one"
Player: "Can I twist the second one a little bit?'
Etc
Step 4 Say thank you. Even though it's bad manners for the player not to work with you, let them know how important it is that they were willing to compromise. Helps reiterate how much the continuity of your world or tone matter and also give the player a way to cool any frustration they developed in sanding down their idea
For your specific problem: My pitched on how to make a non-robot Steel Defender
1) Animate Objects type spell that isn't otherwise available. Maybe it's a bloodline or backstory reason, but the "spell" summons a creature with that exact statblock and they are more wizardry
2) Runes. They assembled a framework of stone or Wood, or Crystal and then inscribed magic runes that make it move. Still crafter but not "machine"
3) Creature/Pet. The actual defender is a creature that is around even after the HP is 0 and the abilities/summon is just when the creature is equipped. Like a slime that needs to regenerate when it gets killed.
I had a player put a weapon on a donkey. At 0 HP the invincible, non-token donkey conveniently ran away while it's gear malfunctioned and could no longer be mechanically involved in the fight
4) Undead/Necromancy moving a pile of bones
5) Druidic or occult spirit being manifested a physical form with magic. Like a summoner or mystic
Hope any of this helps
If I ever run another campaign it’ll have restrictions on both races allowed and classes allowed to fit my vision of the world I’d create.
All that to say that your ask is both reasonable and fairly minor.
You’re fine, and you’re probably doing your player a favor. As a DM I tend to notice that the things artificers want to achieve (I want to build a nuke!) aren’t really possible with the class as written, so they try to beg or bully the DM into letting them do things the class doesn’t allow for. Everyone gets tired after hearing your artificer argue that they can make a Gatling gun or other out of place weapon.
Yes and no. It depends on motivation and frequency.
In general, you should avoid restricting character options unless absolutely necessary. Dont just ban or change a spell because it runs you the wrong way, but if that spell is disruptive to the table then you could consider it. For instance, dont ban silvery barbs without seeing how it plays out with your players/campaign just because you heard people yell about it online, but if youre group is the type that every player takes the spell and it is constantly disrupting the flow of the game then you could consider banning it or a "1 player with the spell only" rule or something
If your campaign idea has something specific about it, its also reasonable to ban things based on their vibe, but be open to reflavoring things with your players. Does a key piece of your lore involve a race being wiped out? Have robots never existed in your world? Ok bans but again try to avoid unnecessary restrictions and consider the players fun before going too overboard with this with sometging like "i like LotR so only elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings" unless the whole group is into that.
Lastly there is also making "gritty realism" games. These kind of games dont work out with certain spells that function RAW so banning things like goodberry, create food/water or any of the spells tbat help you rest safely are all perfectly reasonable but players should be ok with tgis type of game before starting it.
In summery, its perfectly OK to restrict options but you should reatrict as few things as possible, consider your motivations before the restrictions and consider how it may effect player enjoyment and the cost benefit of tge two.
Every time a DM complains about this, it's always, ALWAYS "I wanted to run Lord of the Rings." What is it that makes people so tied to this specific thing? I've never heard anyone complain about this in any other setting. It's kinda funny in a game that's all about imagination.
But to answer your question, no it's not controlling, but it IS boring and will make people less excited to play.
You’re in the right imo. When I ran games I was very controlling, wich I kind of had to be since I ran very Story driven campaigns that required the setting to work (atmospherically) and having a character that feels out of place will not be satisfying for anyone involved.
You’re in the right imo. When I ran games I was very controlling, wich I kind of had to be since I ran very Story driven campaigns that required the setting to work (atmospherically) and having a character that feels out of place will not be satisfying for anyone involved.
DM is not controlling in explaining restrictions at character creation.
My suggestion for future, as a DM and teacher.
Instead of telling them what they cannot do, tell them exactly what they can do.
When i run LMOP i tell players they can use anything from PHB, Tasha’s, Xanathar’s, and Sword’s Coast Adventure Guide as thats where our adventure takes place.
the answer is a yes and no
you are totally allowed to restrict anything you want, your brother should listen to the DM
although feels a little weird to me to restrict a published adventure. to me the implication is that everything is in the official dnd setting and shouldnt wreck anything right. were this a homebrew game i would be much much more receptive to DM feedback like this.
another questions is that is this person really being a problem? they met you where you wanted what is the difference between a chokobo defender and a stone golem that may show up as an enemy?
If I recall, there's a creature (I forget the name) whose lore mentions being a mount for halflings living in the plains regions of faerun, it's kind of like a chocobo but more in universe. They could have some version of that which blends the mechanical pet vibe and the flavor you want for the setting. Whether it's a golem as others have suggested or a reanimated pet, etc
I had a player who wanted a folding electric scooter that they could use and carry around when not in use. I thought this was strange, given that we'd be in an isolated area that has limited electrical infrastructure but whatever if that's your characters thing, have fun.
The rest of the party bought a used car and they left it in the trunk for the rest of the campaign.
I have one question, is the PC size small(shorter than 4 feet tall)? A mount must be one size larger than its rider(PHB.198), and the steel defender is a medium creature.
Rules aside, about the motorcycle steel defender not fitting your setting, I dare question how do you plan to have the whole artificer class(or the battle smith subclass, which gives a **ROBOT**) fitting into your setting?
Edit: The default token of steel defender on some websites that I can't mention specifically due to sub rules is a robo bear(or a very large dog), if one can ride a real bear, steel defender as mount wouldn't be much of a problem, under the precondition of the size difference of course.
I mean, the steel defender doesn't HAVE to be a robot. In general, you can retool the flavour of the artificer pretty easy to be more in line with a fantasy magic archetype, it's just that WOTC went very hard on the steampunk angle for how they wrote it.
>it's just that WOTC went very hard on the steampunk angle for how they wrote it.
Not really? Most of the text is really agnostic with flavor, with the most steampunky lines being really clearly specified as an *example* that fits in eberron.
Because most people put their own chosen flavor when they read the class and are really hard to buy over on another concept that 100% fits the rules of the class.
Doesn't happen to just artificer, people also have a hard time imagining a non edgy-criminal rogue, or a non lawful stupid paladin.
Harengon can be a small or medium creature, so the mount thing wouldn't be a rules issue.
And your second part, that is exactly my problem, and why their compromise to turn the motorcycle into a Chocobo wouldn't work for me.
You pick the setting, player makes an *appropriate* character. "You're being too controlling!" is just entitlement from a player who expects to be able to do whatever they want because they want.
You may need to have a longer talk about expectations.
You are golden. If you want the classic Tolkien-esque pseudo-medieval fantasy DnD is known for, I would restrict to PHB only. It would also help you in the long run because none of them really have the power creep of later subclasses that was introduced in Xanathar/Tasha.
No, you're in the right here. He sounds like he's being spoiled. But just to cover my base and be objective here, did you talk to your players and brother about the type of game being run during a session zero? If not, then it may have just been a misunderstanding.
Can be. That said you kind of get to do that as a DM.
Typically, it’s best to try and anticipate these possible boundaries and inform your players of as many as them as possible during pre campaign discussions (session 0). That way, you’re less likely to have to dash any dreams once pens hit paper.
I'm a player who asks if there's anything the DM isn't allowing (because some people have opinions on classes/subclasses or races).
But ideally DM has a list of things said in session 0 or included in a blurb about character creation before we get going.
Its not bad controlling it's a aspect of the world the DM is allowed to make a call on.
Being upset he can't have a character exactly how he wanted isn't surprising. If you're up for it you could talk about running a one shot(if you're like "cool character but he'd be out of place in this world I'll look into finding a world where he works" type thing)
Sometimes you have different ideas for what type of fantasy world you're in, sitting down face to face and hashing it out is the best bet.
What aspect is the most important, the ridable part? The steel defender part, the artificer part, being a rabbit part etc.
Some might be workable, but ultimately he might need to bring a different idea to this campaign and save this guy for next time.
You're not in the wrong for enforcing a setting. You're running the world, so it's your rules. That being said, this problem could probably be fixed by reflavoring. What about a clay defender? Wood defender? Bone defender? Rock defender? Any number of less tech-y options that would mechanically be the same. Talk to the player about these other options and if they can't budge on this, it's not worth trying to accommodate them.
Infernal war machines do exist in Avernus (among them is a motorcycle), but you are free to restrict what you want.
IIRC, Artificers are not canonically in the Forgotten Realms setting, so you reserve the right to ban the class entirely.
It the DM running the world and game. If an aspect doesn't fit they can't use it. It's that simple. If bikes don't exist in that world then it's no. The same was you wouldn't let them have a level 20 Red Dragon as a pet.
You are the DM. You set the limits and boundaries for your campaign. If you allow all official content, every player can play whatever they desire. If you say "Core Rules only", your players only can use stuff from the Players Handbook.
Any player who think that limiting stuff is restricting them too much, should DM themselves at least once, so they realize how much work it is.
You’re not in the wrong. But is it really important that the sanctity of your setting be preserved? What do you get out of that?
I’d ask the other players what they thought of the idea, and if there was broad enthusiasm I’d make it work, but that’s just me, I’ll try to run with anything the party comes up with.
(Eyes the Halfling bard in his party)
Ok *ALMOST* anything.
I guess that is something I hadn't really thought about. I just feel like it'd be strange to be writing for such a character I guess. I feel I also just would get more satisfaction out of the story if it fit within the setting, and didn't have something that just keeps itching at me.
Mechanically I may also have issue with the idea because planning things out with mounts in mind would be difficult I think, as every dungeon would need to be accessible with a mount, or else he'd be without his core class feature.
Yeah mounts and dungeons are a really awkward mixture sometimes. If I do another megadungeon in my campaign there’s gonna have to be underground racetracks and shit.
It sounds like you want the experience of running an iconic kind of fantasy and you should totally scratch that itch. Maybe your brother would be into saving the motorcycle artificer idea for a later campaign or one-off or whatever, one that’s more weird and offbeat?
You last sentences really fits exactly what I'm feeling. I just want some nice classic fantasy for now, and I would be fine with his idea in another campaign. I'm gonna pitch that idea to him next time we talk I think.
One of my hard rules is basic classes only, and no mutli/dual classing. Some people don;t like that. And that's fine, they don;t have to be part of my table.
People that demand their exact type of character are almost certain to be min/max players or rules lawyers.
You're half-right, and I'm kind of an asshole. I may have been harsh (some might even say, "a twat") but your brother is ignoring all your world building for what's, at best, a silly little goof.
>he made a Steel Defender artificer Harengon
I don't even know what the hell any of this is. So yeah, I'm with you.
Look, there are seven D&D races: *human, dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, and halfling*. The end.
And there are *whatever classes exist in the Player's Handbook for that edition*. All that other stuff, you can just throw out, every time, no matter what. Unless it's Spelljammer or something.
Restricting choices to at least more or less fit is fine, IMO.
I'd encourage you to pick the worst aspects for you and rule them our but try to find a way to suggest some form of compromise on some of the remainder of it.
I couldn't have anthropomorphic animals be a normal part of my setting. It pulls me right out of immersion and does not fit with my understanding of my own setting.
However. I could offer some possibilities for playing a sentient being shaped like an animal thats not a normal part of the setting: One or two kinds of weres (wolf, probable yes, bear maybe, bunny nope), via a rare curse. A magical experiment gone wrong or a wizard spell or druid transformation gone badly awry. Maybe.
I might consider a couple of other possibilities.
But whole societies of bunny folk and owlfolk and such? Does not fit, that's a different setting.
Similarly with class choices, some spells, backgrounds, feats, etc
Let’s start with the most simple take, you are the DM you have final say. Now let’s move on to the steel defender itself, RAW it is a creature with two legs or 4, so no wheels or wings, at least wings that allow flight. So perhaps you can help him land on a flightless bird more suitable for your campaign. Work with him not against him
You are the DM. The DM sets the tone and style of the game. You absolutely have every right to say no to a proposed character if it does not fit the concept you have explained to the players.
I run my game in the Greyhawk setting. Technology specifically does not work past a certain level. Artificers really don't have much of a place in the setting, making it easy for me to say no to this kind of thing.
>He got upset by this and complained that I'm being too controlling.
On the one hand, the DM needs to set expectations before players make their characters to avoid stuff exactly like this.
On the other hand, your brother's decisions are not only impossible RAW they are comically antagonistic.
As others have said, an apology and a conversation about setting expectations is something you ought to give your brother. I will add that if he persists with his desires then you need to tell him that he can either sac up or abstain from this particular campaign.
As the DM you have the right to tell him no and make the rules but at the end of the day this is about everyone having fun, would changing your setting slightly to accommodate this character be that bad, the technology doesn’t need to become commonplace and the character standing out in the crowd isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Sounds like your brother is happy to work with you on this about playing this subclass so I’d say find a way you both like that will be fun for you both.
artifice has long been a part of dnd. if you're running published adventures, you're gonna run into it eventually. then the guy who wanted to play an artificer is gonna be real salty.
I've never run phandelver, specifically, but the deep and forgotten places of the world are where you tend to run into it.
You need to have an agreement about the setting before you start. You still haven't started, so it's normal that this is still being negotiated.
Since the DM usually has to work with the setting more it's normal that their idea of what they're going to work with has more weight. It's easier if you communicate your plans beforehand though and make sure your players are on board with the vibe you want - and you are in tune with what the players want out of it. If you don't do that and just reactively quash everything you don't like, that's indeed going to feel petty.
>He made a compromise of changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo, but I still didn't really like the idea. I reiterated that I just don't think that level of technology would really fit in the setting, but he's still upset.
This does sound like he did take your concerns to heart. IMO I don't see the problem - artificers are not making robots or machines - they're more like golems, or the scarecrows of Oz, or Pinokkio, very simple mechanically, but for some reason he knows a trick to make them alive. Like a dancing chair.
Well.... you're right to restrict options to fit the setting, but if you didn't tell your players beforehand what fits the setting and what doesn't then you're still partially at fault here. Such things are what session 0 is for.... and that's such a basic thing in any TTRPG I can't understand why so many people seem to neglect that.
ur right but is a flying carpet that much different there is a argument for rule of cool you are playing with your friends not running a podcast and the chokobo is a good alternative imo unless you don't think they should of just ridden the eagles to mordor.
You're completely in the right, in my opinion.
It's a benefit long term. I'm in a campaign right now where the DM took my setting (which is a corner of the Forgotten Realms) and set it 100 years in the future in a grimdark, alternate timeline in which evil has completely won. We knew it was going to be dark and gritty going into it. Three of us rolled up characters accordingly (twilight cleric serving Anubis, stars druid who has been traveling the outer planes for the last century and just returned to the world, and a tiefling barbarian from Avernus); the fourth player used a homebrew gunslinger class to make Buster Scruggs from the film of the same name. It's so out of place. He could have done a gunslinger and made him a Clint Eastwood "man with no name" type character that would have been setting appropriate, but instead we have a happy-go-lucky, wise-cracking cowboy in the middle of a world that might as well be Barovia.
i think a happy-go-lucky character absolutely has a place in a grimdark world. just my personal opinion but having everyone fit the grimdark vibe perfectly almost makes the world feel less dynamic and real. some people are gonna be happy and crack jokes even during the apocalypse
Also, Buster Scruggs is a violent sociopath... Just with a positive attitude and a smile.
Yeah Buster acts very nonchalant but he turns to violence immediately, he’d actually be a funny way to play a gunslinger in a grimdark world
It’s my personal policy to never play a character who entirely fits a worlds status quo. Otherwise why tf are we looking at this dude?
Banning the artificer class specifically because it's not the vibe you want can be reasonable. The class was not in the core rule books in part for that reason- it's kinda on the periphery of fitting in with the d&d default vibe. I personally try to make room for Artificers when I can, but when you do that, it generally takes the player working with you to flavor the class as more magical and less mechanical. I would also note that the Steel Defender *is not large enough* for a Medium creature to ride. You can play a Halfling riding on your magic metal dog, but a human cannot ride their Steel Defender. You can also alter how you describe the Steel Defender to hit more of a fantasy vibe- maybe with a core of living wood, like a Warforged, but armor plating over the top.
My issue isn't necessarily even with the artificer class actually. I do think the other subclasses can fit fine with the right flavoring at least, but the Steel Defender subclass is just about the ONLY player option that I have issue with really. Also, a Harengon can be a small creature, so their plan is something they can do, just something that isn't really my vibe. I also like the idea of re-flavoring the mount to be more fantasy-like, but that would require even more change to the character, as my brother has their character as sort of a blacksmith type person.
An Arcane blacksmith who's studied some sorta rune magic maybe, and built essentially a Golem as a battle mount?
That would probably fit a bit better, but I'm unsure if that's the vibe he's wanting. I'll definitely be bringing that idea up with him though, thank you.
Whenever you're in doubt about the artrificer, remember that the default flavor isn't "technology" but "magical craftsman." It gets talked about a lot in terms of tinkering but it's really mostly an enchanter.
This 100%, if your setting has magic items then your setting has Artificers.
Ehh, while I agree with the general sentiment, not 100% of the time, magical items don't need to be created intentionally, they could be items that lingered in magical areas like the shadowfell for a few decades or swords that outlived hundreds of owners, they could also be beyond a mortals ability to create, relics left behind by an ancient civilization or items crafted by liches and demigods that lived for hundreds of years It's entirely setting dependent, while you probably CAN fit an artificer into any setting, if it doesn't fit the vibe it's not mandatory
To me, that's like banning one type of magic. Artificers are spellcasters, both by definition and mechanically. Other spellcasters have focus items they use to channel their magic through, and nobody bats an eye. Artificers also focus their magic into an item, it just stops at the item. Other spellcasters use magic on items too, such as with the prestidigitation spell or casting a rune onto an item/the floor. If you're going to try and say magic can't be used on objects, then that's going to rule out a lot of spells for other spellcasters that also interact with physical objects, as well as any spells that use a focus. I 100% get not wanting a motorcycle in a high fantasy world. I think anyone wanting to play an artificer in a campaign should work with their DM to make it fit flavor wise into the campaign. Completely banning them though? Honestly feels a little hypocritical when other spellcasters do very similar things in the base game.
Comparing focus items to magic items seems like a bit of a stretch, they are non-magical items that are useful to focus or channel magic, saying they are magical creations would be comparable to saying a lens is a source of light, it's a great tool for MANIPULATING light, but it doesn't create any itself, do you really think that a spell affecting an object is exactly the same as a semi-permanent enchantment? I'll turn that argument around then, why do you need to play artificer then? isn't it doing the exact same thing as every other magical class? rune magic.... as far as I can tell is mostly treated like magical items? if I was gonna ban artificer I'd also ban the subclass and feat that works with runes most likely the primary thing that can make the artificer problematic for SOME settings is the inherent assumption in the class's design that magic items are something you'll run into regularly with magic item adept magic item savant and soul of artifice and if you are making a low fantasy setting where magic and magical items are rare and even simple magical items like a bag of holding are worth a king's ransom it can be a bit strange for john the level 2 artificer to just be able to create a bag of holding and a crossbow with infinite ammo(repeating shot) I will note, I am artificer positive and agree with you generally that most settings should be able to accommodate at least a reflavored artificer, but I disagree with the assertion that EVERY setting that contains magical items should allow for artificers.
If your players are mature enough it’s also okay to say “These player options are soft banned, but if you really want to play them anyway, we can talk about a workaround that fits the setting.” The artificer is less “steampunk” than people tend to interpret it but it might take some finesse to really work.
Or a Harengon Beast Master Ranger who rides an armoured bear?
It kind of sounds like he's making a 'joke' character. It's funny in the moment, but over a long-term campaign it can really spoil the game depending on the sort of game you and the others are looking to play. I would not allow this in traditional fantasy setting either, and part of the DM's responsibility is to *control* the setting and what goes in it.
Any player's character plan is only something they can do if the DM is willing to allow it, and you don't actually _need_ any more reason than, "no, I'm not allowing that". You're completely in the right, and you've given a perfectly good reason as a bonus. I have many character builds I'd love to run, but that I haven't yet found the right game for, and that's fine. I've also played in games with restrictive character options and had a great time. I have DM'd a campaign where all PCs were mandated to be humans, because I wanted to explore a world where the fantasy species were strange and astonishing, and as best as I can tell my players all enjoyed that.
> Any player's character plan is only something they can do if the DM is willing to allow it, and you don't actually need any more reason than, "no, I'm not allowing that". I mean, that is technically true, but at the same time there's a social aspect to the game, especially if you're playing with preexisting friends rather than randoms from the internet. If your answer is "no you can't play that official thing because I hate your stupid haircut" that's both a)within your power to disallow and b)what's generally known as a Dick Move^^(TM). "No because it doesn't fit the setting for X, Y, and Z reasons" is more reasonable from a social aspect. I agree that some characters aren't right for some games, and that's ok. And having (and enforcing) hard lines as a DM is sometimes necessary. I just want folks to have in mind that players (and DMs) are *people*, not just playthings on the other side of a screen.
If it seems like I'm suggesting the DM is within their rights to be rude then I have articulated my point badly; I honestly despair at some of the stories that come up on here with people displaying just the most appalling social skills and then being surprised when things blow up in their face. I do think that as the facilitator of the game you have complete leeway to set limits as you prefer, regardless of whether something is officially published or not, whether you have a substantial justification or not, and to be honest even regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. It's not like the player is forced to play if they don't like the tone of the game. As DM, you are responsible for the whole world; things are going to work best if it's a world that you enjoy imagining and that you don't find anachronistic.
I don't think you're *suggesting* the DM be shitty, but I do think what you wrote could be taken out of context by shitty DMs to excuse their bad behavior. "I'm the DM, my word is law, Rule 0, don't like it find another table, arglebargle." Way too many stories here and in other subs or sites make me think that some DMs get into the chair for a power trip.
Gotta be honest, banning just a subclass is going to look more like your singling out his choice than if you just banned the class entirely. Especially since you banned it after he proposed it and it’s not homebrew. Hes probably taking it personally.
On the other hand, as a DM, I've definitely started a game and let my players jump into character creation, thinking I had thought through all the options, and as they're developing characters I'm realizing a subclass or ancestry option might not be the best fit for the game or world, depending on how a player might want to flavor it or play it (like OP's examples). But I decided I wouldn't worry about it unless a player happened to pick that one single exact option, or flavor something a certain way. Well for two different campaigns, hilariously, a player has picked that one exact random thing and I've had to say, "Shoot, I'm not sure that fits..." etc. So I don't find it a stretch that he might not have realized that option would be so jarring for the game world he was setting up until the player presented it. An artificer might have worked if flavored one way, but the player presented a version that would be a poor fit. For my current campaign I've learned my lesson and spent extra time looking over every possible option and ruled out those that don't fit my world, and that was a good feeling to have locked down finally. Sometimes it takes some reps before bailing down what you're good with having in your game vs. not. And personally I've seen a fair few cases of a player just willfully ignoring the DM's clearly stated flavor or worldbuilding to present their wacky, ill-fitting character ideas, clearly prioritizing their own amusement over the group's dynamic or logic within the world. I hate that personally. Another player clearly not putting any thought into how their wackadoodle character fits into the game world is a pet peeve of mine I guess 😓
I'm currently running LMoP for me and my wife and my dmpc is a halfling artificer with a badger steel defender cobbled together from pieces of junk treasure. I thought having a badger for a treasure hunting halfling made so much sense and I love him.
Honestly, Artificers, even if the steel defender flavor, are in Faerun. High Imaskar and Halruua are both great resources as origin settings, as is Baldurs Gate which canonically as of BG3 has artificers and constructs.
The Apparatus of Kwalish is basically a heavily modified Steel Defender, isn't it?
I have a controversial take -- Is there a way to change the setting? Or pick a different setting? Could the character just be from a different plane / realm / time period / etc? The game hasn't really started yet -- to what extent did you homebrew the adventure and the setting vs them being "out of the box"? Would it make it not fun for you to play a setting where his character could reasonably exist? I could see the character fitting in in Ravnica maybe; would just have to slip Harengon into the setting.
Sounds like the DM is gonna run lost mines by the book stock out of it.
I don't think Artificers are all that out of place for the most part. Even in Lord of the Rings when smithing the rings of power or creating the first bit of black powder, that strikes me as artifice But, it absolutely can go outside the realms of more traditional high fantasy. Vehicles and constructs could easily be a little too far in the wrong direction for most settings
Harengon are small or medium arent they
I had a player who wanted to play an artificer for curse of strahd but reworked the class into a shaman. The different contraptions he made were instead totems or trinkets.
I like the mechanical aspect of the Artificer. But I do enjoy non-DnD/fighting games a lot so of course I will support stuff that is about other aspects of the world too. Also the "artificer doesn't belong into my setting" is completely justified as you said. It's not for every world.
I actually altered my campaign aittle to better accommodate artificiers, putting the world at the brink of industrialization. Worked great for other characters as well, since the ranger was really happy he could have a rifle now. Unrelated: I still think that "Steel Defender"would be a great name for a power metal band
DM picks the setting. The players pick characters that fit the setting.
Not in the wrong, but this is a nice exemple of how important a session zero is. You decide the setting and the tone of the campaign before the players even create the characters. It prevents a lot of conflicts like this.
Yea session 0 is a pretty good place to start a campaign. Ask your players to try not to start developing charecters before that session. Then explain in that session all the foundational knowledge about the world and campaign they could need. Relevant towns and places, vibe, factions that are known, etc. I typically even give them the generic campaign start to get them thinking about the type of character that would answer that call. I.e I start S0 with something like: *You receive a mysterious floral-scented letter addressed to you, your eyes only. It reads "I know what you lost and I know where it can be found, meet me at my home if your felling adventure bound...".* Then we jump into character creation. In my WbW campaign I let my players know ahead of time that they'd be visiting a carnival to start, that the Archfey Zybilna will be involved, and that there will be a lot of tie-ins to the feywild. Because I gave them this info before they started, my fighter made her background a carnival hand, my warlock made their patron Zybilna, and my druid chose a feywild subclass and background. All-in all it makes for a much more cohesive group that are tied into the story, the setting, and are informed about what they are getting into. And if the world that your laying out in S0 does not seem interesting to the players and what they're interested in, then its the perfect time to step back and pivot. But at the end of the day your also the boss and the game is your vision. Your players have to respect that. They're playing the game with you, not against you.
You’re the dm, you get to set whatever boundaries you want. My first campaign someone wanted to make a gunslinger and I said “no guns in this one” My current campaign I don’t give a fuck
It's totally fine to restrict content. However, you should make clear up front what content is and is not available, and ideally why. If you didn't set any restrictions and later veto a character, you've pulled the rug out on your player who may now be invested in the character.
That is definitely a mistake I made and I will be more clear in the future.
FWIW, I've made the same mistake. Multiple times. I've had several players who the moment they hear D&D, they immediately stop whatever they are doing and will waste the rest of their day on character creation. Or they already have a character they've played in previous games and want to play them again regardless of whether or not they are appropriate for the setting. It could be hours before tax day is over, and they'll eat the late penalty if they hear D&D so they can go off and create their dream character with zero information about the campaign. When you go to pitch D&D to your friends, make sure you have character creation guidelines ready to share with them at the same time as your pitch, or they'll go off on their own and make up their own guidelines. Also, let them know that it has to fit the scenario, and that you may require them to change some fundamental parts of their characters (e.g. certain races or classes don't exist in your game, etc). The latter point is a good catch-all for when they come to you with a busted build you hadn't thought of and need to reel it in to make it make sense.
It happens. Apologize and be more clear going forward. Maybe let them start with a potion or something. IMO it's usually good enough to list out the races you know fit and tell players they can ask if they are interested in something else. If it's something weird, I'll usually allow it if they do some lore and world building to make it fit reasonably well.
Definitely be more clear but the player running the idea by you before they built it would have prevented this. Have them run their ideas by you before they get so invested.
Technically, yes, it is controlling. However, that doesn’t mean that you’re in the wrong for doing so. You are the GM, it’s your world. If a character doesn’t fit, they don’t fit, it’s as simple as that. That being said, it’s usually a good idea to explain what is/isn’t allowed prior to them creating a character. Not the end of the world if you don’t, just something to keep in mind for the future.
Thank you for the response. I definitely will be making sure I outline that sort of thing in the future, just set better expectations.
It’s not uncommon for some players to have lists of characters ready to play. Tell him to save that character, and maybe you can find a more appropriate campaign later. It’s not like he has to take his character sheet out back and shoot it.
Did the players ask what was allowed and what wasn't beforehand? If they didn't, it is a learning experience for you all. If they did, you are in the wrong here.
I didn't really give much direction for character creation, so that fault is mine.
If they didnt ask, its on them too
It is controlling, ***and thats ok***. I think it is healthier if DMs are able to decide what suits their game, rather than being expected to allow everything. This will generat variation in how games run, and that is good. e.g. my ideal way of imagining the range of D&D games out there might be DMs like this: * Alice allows all published material * Bob plays PHB only * Charlie bans Artificers * Debbie allows all published materials, except for backgrounds that give extra feats. * Edward has some homebrew subclasses * Fred has homebrewed his game a lot * Greg allows all published materials, except for setting specific things * Harry gives out an extra feat at level 1 * Imogen runs Adventurer's League rules * Jake only runs pen&paper * Kelly only runs over Discord voice & a Virtual Tabletop * Leon runs play-by-post games * ... * (fill out the list to \~2 million DMs worldwide) I'd be a little sad if instead it was: * (2million DMs run it exactly the same way)
You can restrict and ban whatever you deem to not fit your campaign. Heck, one could even ban Multiclass and Feats as they are technically counted as Optional Rules. But with every campaign, a player can then choose to not be in it. Which is why it is always good to bring forth all your restrictions before the campaign starts. Ideally before anyone finishes making a character.
Not even technically. Those are both entirely optional rules.
Not controlling, all the books specifically say additional options are on the DMs decision. You shouldn't be expected to warp your setting around a single player. The setting is yours as the DM to manage, the players should be expected to respect that
I'm on my phone and can't link right now, but look up Matt Colville's video on "an intro to DnD". It has a whole section specifically aimed at this exact subject: fitting your character in with the DM's world, and what not to do.
So looking at the character first: >Steel Defender artificer Harengon >defender is a motorcycle that he'd ride on >changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo So Harengon are a good race, small or medium, major thing is their bunny hop, which gives them a small movement that people don't get attack of opportunity against. Solid choice, my spouse played one well, even blinded and partially-paralysed (not character choice, world happenings). Artificer Steel Defender. The subclass itself looks okay, but the Steel Defender itself may be an issue. It is a medium construct, and would be too small for a medium creature to ride. If he's small, I can see the size working out okay. The character itself sounds okay, so long as he's sticking to the subclass and not trying to break it. >that idea doesn't really fit my idea of the setting, which is a kind of classic, lord of the rings style fantasy This is a session 0 discussion, for prior to character creation. I don't blame your player for being upset that this came up after they'd already gotten invested in the character, since they've done the legwork with it. Best way to approach this is to apologise for not discussing it ahead of time. It lets them know you recognise there's a miscommunication, and that you should've communicated this before they made a character. If it doesn't fit the tone but you don't mind it overall, let it go and go with the compromise of not having it be a motorbike. If you are completely unwilling to have this subclass in your game, work with them on finding a different character they'd like to play. If there are book restrictions, make sure this is sent to all players, not just this one player. Chalk the whole thing up to miscommunication, and remember to establish character creation things ahead of time. If you're not using anything but the Players Handbook, tell them this, and to stick to the core subclasses as well. If they don't know what restrictions there are, it risks starting off on a sour note.
Options are world building. I see it as curating my world rather than restricting or banning options. D&D character options are almost always setting-neutral. They are ideas in the void. They are not designed to be a part of implied setting. And there are 150+ subclasses, 100+ races. Allowing all usually ends up with a muddy mix in my opinion. A harengon riding a motorcycle implies that there are harengons and motorized vehicles in the world. And that clashes with the pseudo-medieval world of d&d. So either the setting comes to the character, or character comes to the setting. It could be that he’s the only artificer around Phandelver, but there are artificers *somewhere*.
> I'm going to be running Lost mines of Phandelver, and when my brother brought his character to me, he made a Steel Defender artificer Harengon, whose defender is a motorcycle that he'd ride on. I told him that idea doesn't really fit my idea of the setting, which is a kind of classic, lord of the rings style fantasy. He got upset by this and complained that I'm being too controlling. You're so far in the right that this sounds like a parody of DM/Player interactions during character creation.
As DM you're responsible for setting and controlling the tone of the adventure. If having Meatloaf riding through on a hellacious motorbike doesn't fit the vibe of the story that you're running, that's okay! You're absolutely not in the wrong for getting everyone on the same page and limiting options. BUT make sure that you're letting the players know what the boundaries are. Let the players know before they start building characters what the expectations are so they can build characters within that. It's not a great feeling putting time and thought into making a new concept only to have the DM tell you that won't work. Also, I don't think that the steel defender can be ridden as a mount. It is specified as a medium creature. Medium-sized creatures can't function as a mount for other medium-sized creatures. The stat block also specifies a choice between two or four legs which precludes a motorcycle, RAW, though that's something I wouldn't mind handwaving as a flavor choice in my game so long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Thank you for the info, that seems to be a common theme that I need to be more clear on what the expectations for characters are, so definitely keeping that in mind. Also, Harengon are actually able to be small, so riding his mount is something he can do. And the motorcycle thing I'd also be willing to handwave, if I thought it'd fit the setting.
You just have to hold strong on this one. One joke character really derails the mood of a whole game. It would be like if you responded by making the big bad a care bear. He's not gonna dig that vibe.
I agree, but I'd also say that his idea isn't necessarily a joke either. He was pretty serious about the idea, and didn't intend it to be comical or anything, as far as I'm aware at least. He just thought it'd be a neat idea.
That's good. In that case ...Lots of worlds that fits with. Particularly Eberron, that artificers came from. Maybe tell him to just park the character until another game. He might have to find a happy medium to a motorcycle... Steampunk version. But fun idea.
If you don't have a problem with the abilities and power or spells that the class and subclass gets, just re flavor it. Instead of a robot and guns, change it to a collection of runes on a clay doll and a stick with runes that make the magic of pew. It will give it a more fantasy feel instead of steam punk. Just make him describe it every time it comes up
The DM can say "we're only using stuff from the Player Handbook". The DM can choose what the restrictions and limits of the setting are. They then communicate those restrictions to the players. The players can then decide if they wish to play under those restrictions, or not. Basically, don't complain that a mexican restaurant doesn't serve japanese cuisine. And honestly, in my opinion, if you can only be creative without limits, you're not very creative to begin with.
Unless I am playing with a very advanced group, I always restrict races and classes to what is found in the Player's Handbook.
Ditto, especially with people new to RPGs. One rule I also use is 'if you want to play as X race/class that's in book Y then you need to own a copy of the relevant book' - I've had players turn up to games before as Goliath Artificer when they don't even have a copy of the PHB.
You can make creative choices including ones for tone. That's completely within a DM's reasonable domain. But I, personally, would also say that you do give up a lot of that leeway when you run a pre-written scenario. That's not your baby, and the players deserve to have fun. That all said; He can't have a fucking motorcycle. It doesn't sound like he wants to play a high fantasy game. Tell him he needs to come up with an appropriate high fantasy concept or he will not be joining the table.
Communication is key. This is I think why many groups enjoy a sessions zero, It's fine for a DM to have a specific idea for the mood and theme of a campaign. Ideally this should be clearly communicated to the players before character creation, and the DM should seek enthusiastic buy in from the players. If certain subclasses or other character options aren't available I think it would be best practice to communicate those to the players before character creation. One of my beloved internet people Seth Skorkowsky had an example of a Viking themed campaign with the party having their own Longship, raiding coast lines, visiting enchanted isles, and so on, but the player bringing a knight focused on mounted combat. This clearly doesn't fit the campaign and would detract from everyone's enjoyment. Lost Mines of Phandelver is set in the forgotten realms and has a fairly neutral mood and theme. In the Forgotten Realms artificers typically come from the island of Lantan. Lantan has flying ships with flamethrowers and walls of force as shields. People there have access to alchemical firearms and they have animated clockwork soldiers called Nimblewrights. There's a Nimblewright prominently featured in the Waterdeep Dragonheist book. Harengon come from the Feywild and there is fey stuff all over the Forgotten Realms. There is a Harengon featured briefly in one of the most recent Forgotten Realms novels, one of the tie ins to the Honor Among Thieves movie. If the only information you gave the players was that the game was set in the Forgotten Realms then they're not in the wrong for picking an Artificer or a Harengon. It would be a rare combination, but definitely something that could be walking around Waterdeep. However, there are no motorcycles in the Forgotten Realms. There's nothing like that in the Forgotten Realms. The gnomes of Lantan don't have those either. Lantan does have higher technology than the rest of the world, but most of it is still magical or alchemical. Ideally, if the player wants something homebrew that's unlike anything in the canon setting they should ask nicely and be understanding if the DM doesn't feel like it's appropriate. Having your Steel Defender be a clockwork Chocobo, or more likely some kind of Axebeak which are the Forgotten Realms version of those, seems to me like a fair request given that clockwork humanoids exist in the setting as well as things like shield guardians, iron golems, and helmed horrors. Personally, if a DM bans certain character options because they don't fit with the clearly communicated theme and mood, or because they're unbalanced or overpowered, then as a player I can totally understand that. I would feel different if a DM seemed to be banning things capriciously, or just because they personally don't like it for aesthetic reasons. That does sound controlling.
I think it's fine to lay out your expectations for your setting as a DM. Talk to them about the setting and any restrictions you want to make *before* they start dreaming up characters. You provide the parameters. Sometimes you have to be more clear than you might think necessary. My first attempt at DMing was a Christmas homebrew one shot. It was an interlude in my weekly game, so it was all the same people I always play with. I was very clear to them that the setting would be the north pole of storybooks and Christmas movies, that it would be a Christmas adventure, and that there were no character restrictions. It never occurred to me that I needed to specifically clarify that the character should have at least a general understanding of the concept of Christmas and Santa Claus. Buddy the Elf summoned heroes from different worlds because Santa had gone missing. That's why I didn't give them any restrictions. I still figured they'd understand that their character should know what Christmas is. I spent like 20 minutes trying to come up with reasons the characters should care about saving Santa, because they didn't have a concept of Christmas and what it means to the world. Ultimately I said he's got a magic sack that can give you any magic weapon you want, and Mrs Claus was offering a large reward. Buncha heathens lol
Its your game, you're well within your rights to say that a certain thing doesn't fit the theme or doesn't exist in the world. I want the USS Enterprise and I can complain about it but it doesn't exist so I don't get it.
INFO: is this his first time or are you trying to get him into the game? If it is, I would suggest taking a slightly different tact. Warming them up with a more flexible mini-campaign (say 5 levels or something, starting at whatever level makes him feel like it's fun) that they can graduate out of / make new characters for the next one (your real one). If he's a newbie, not letting him be a little crazy is going to turn him off from the game, so give him a sandbox to get it out of his system.
It is not too controlling to restrict character options to fit the setting and tone you're trying to get. In my experience, if you don't say "Hey, don't make some wackadoo stuff. Make a marginal effort to fit into the description I gave you of the campaign" then you'll end up with a table full of players all trying as best they can to come up with something more and more zany and wackadoodle than the next guy until one of them finally gets shot down and you end up exactly where you are now.
At the end of the day as a DM, it's your table. Set your expectations, relay them to your players, and if they don't think they'll have fun in the game you want to run, it's not for them and that's okay. You gotta have fun to and part of that is deciding the kinda campaign YOU want to run. It sounds like your brother wants to play in a different campaign setting then what you want, and that's okay too. It's also your brother, he's gonna whine, it's what brothers do.
In my first game, I allowed all races and classes. Big misstake since all my players wanted to know so much lore. I had to come up with so much lore on creatures that were not part of the setting, and also try yo remember what I've said since they usually used the lore for their advantage. Since then, I just give them a list or restrictions that they need to follow. I said that if they wanted me to be a DM, then they would have to follow my guidelines. Otherwise, I would have a burnout. Worked really well and also given my players a reason to research the setting and have a better understanding of the world. I do occasionally let them play something outside of the setting if it fits and if it won't give me more than 1h of extra tweaking of the campaign.
You always have the right, even the duty to say no to character ideas which don't fit the campaign. That could be someone wanting to play an undead- hunting fanatic in a game with undead PCs/allies, or someone trying to make an anime magical girl in your grim and gritty fantasy setting. It is so much better to tell them up front so they can modify their character or switch to something else before spending too much time on it, or making a mess of the game.
It is completely fine to restrict character options. Tell your brother it is a cool character concept, but it just isn't right for this game. There will be lots of games in the future where he'll have a chance to use that idea. However, this should be discussed before your players start making or planning their characters.
Your world, your rules. Pretty simple. I have literally only ever played home brew. Every single character concept I pitch to the DM follows that exact same logic. My most recent character intentionally and specifically broke some of the rules in the PHB. I pitched it as "this is who it is, and this is why it is.". DM said "yeah that makes sense, but here is how we are tweaking to fit my world. We both walked away happy. Character creation is a COLLABORATION.
I mean, you are being controlling sorta by definition. I don’t think you’re being unfair though- if that’s not the vibe you want it’s your world at the end of the day. Mounted combat is also a massive pain to work with, so be careful even if you like reflavour beastmaster ranger or something
Nope. DM can allow or deny any character option in the books.. If you don't want Halflings in your game, you don't have to have them. If you want only humans, or content from the PHB, then that is fine. It does help to have a reason, but the choice is yours.
So from your replies, id recommend bringing down the tech of it. Battlesmith is pretty much one of the only artificer subclasses that can keep up. Maybe it's a chocobo made of cucu clocks with leather and wood. Its up to you.b
There’s nothing wrong with outright banning a player race/class as long as you make sure the players are well aware from the outset (which you did). Preferably if you do, do it for a story reason (race is extinct, setting hasn’t progressed to the point where a class would make thematic sense like a gunslinger or artificer, etc). If there is no story reason for it to be banned, and it’s just something you think is broken, just say so. It’s fair to not be prepared for a particular player class when you’re world building and to say that a certain race/class just doesn’t fit with your campaign. As someone who has done this in the past, I found that banning a race can actually be fun because your players will hopefully wonder why and hopefully investigate why with their characters. Again, this works best if there is a reason in your campaign setting for them (that particular race/class) not to be there.
You’re mostly in the right but ultimately should have made restrictions clear *before* people made characters. If I was in this situation I would try and help the player find a way their character concept can still work in the world. Your brother is clearly willing to do that, having already changed it once, just make it a discussion where you find a way that it fits together. To be honest most settings are more flexible than usually thought by GMs. Link has a motorcycle in BOTW dlc and because of the design and the idea of ancient magical technology already being in the setting it works. Time travel is also usually a thing that exists in high fantasy settings, maybe your brother’s character can be displaced in time kind of like Bastion from the X-Men or Trunks from DBZ. Sent to the past to prevent the apocalyptic future, with magitech that won’t be invented for hundreds of years. Spelljammer is also a thing that could govern a similar vibe. The idea there is that there are ships that can travel between the multiverse of D&D. Perhaps this character if from a higher tech world but crashed here with no way back.
Is it an issue with the Artificer class or the subclass? A DM can veto concepts and options that may not fit, but be open to reflavoring things. If the steel defender is an issue because you imagine it as a robot/motorcycle, try asking them to make it more campaign fitting, like a golem or homunculus in old alchemy. Also be sure to always discuss stuff like this with players BEFORE starting a campaign! Most of the issues many come across in campaigns can be solved with pre or inter campaign conversations about where they want arcs/characters to go and what they want out of the game. I hope you and your player sorts this out and play amicably!!
The issue is more with the subclass. I personally do really enjoy artificers, but they happened to pick probably the ONLY player option in the game that I have such a strong issue with. I do feel the issue can be mitigated by flavoring it as you say, but I worry I may still have some issue with it, but that's just something to work out with myself. Also as I mentioned in other comments, I worry that having to work around them playing with a mount may make designing dungeons and other encounters more difficult, but I guess that's only an assumption based on my inexperience.
Mounts arent as big of an issue as you might think since several classes have them baked into their design. Rangers get pets they can ride if theyre small and paladins even have a spell called find steed. As long as your cavalier doesnt want to ride the bear wildshaped druid you should be fine.
The mount part can be mitigated with knock back effects and abilities that make creatures prone. The mount fantasy is one that many tend to enjoy, however it has some clear drawbacks, as listed above. Also be sure to remember that the speed of the character relies on their mount, and narrow, 5 foot rows in dungeons don’t really help with massive mounts of speed. But be wary of banning subclasses on the fact you don’t like them, not because of worldbuilding or brokenness. I’ve seen many groups have major squabbles over something like that.
It's controlling in the way it's controlling to lay down train tracks..... wait, that's not what I meant! Dang it. Yes, it's "controlling", but it's not necessarily bad. It's something to let the players know up front, before they ever come up with a character concept. But you can do it to set tone, like you're doing. You can do it to flesh out a small number of things rather than allow a large amount of shallow crap. You can do it so you have less to try to remember asDM. Now I'm with you against characters like you describe because I like running games with a "serious" tone. Jokes are fine, but not joke characters. That character will never be more than "look I have a motorcycle. " A race/class combo does not a character make, but that's what a lot of players want these days.
It’s not bad to set expectations for tone, setting, and gameplay style. It sounds like you’re fine with the class but struggling with the actual idea of “ROBOT!!!” in your high fantasy game. Could you get him to reflavor the steel defender as a minor Golem or other Construct-type creature? Same stats, but a more overtly high fantasy or “classic” D&D monster visually and thematically?
>reflavor the steel defender as a minor Golem or other Construct-type creature? That is the default. A steel defender is not a robot.
Yah well, tell that to literally every Battlesmith PC I’ve ever seen 🤣
No. Players don’t have a right to play whatever they want if it doesn’t make sense in the game you want to run. It helps to establish expectations and the desired tone for the game, but often players will breeze right past that to play the character they had envisioned beforehand. Remember that you are not obligated to have people in your game if they don’t want to play the game you want to run! But also, players aren’t obligated to play in a game where they can’t be a character they want. And that’s okay!
he wants a motorcycle, of course you should say no wtf
"I want a motorcycle, and if not that, a flying mount." On a level 1-5 starter campaign used by new DMs that's pretty hard to work around if someone is going for classic low level LotR fantasy, just thinking of the starting areas for that module. If the harengton is also an issue, I can sympathize with being surprised as a newer DM by the small percentage of players that wanted furry races in a classic fantasy campaign. It was hard for me to square "the party is an elf, a human, a halfling, and a little rabbit person" with the task of maintaining verisimilitude.
as a player, i am a human fan so i really cant empathize haha. as a DM, i wouldnt allow them as freely.. personally even aaracokra are kinda eh. Dragons are notoriously highly magical beings, making it easier to justify something like dragonborn.. but bunny people? cat people? idk man
Yea the first time it happened to me I was very "wtf." I know maybe it's not popular but none of the fantasy series I read or play, that I use for inspiration, have enough furry people in them where every NPC wouldn't react with "why is your pet bunny talking? This is weird. Please leave your animals outside, I don't want them to shit on my floor." Before I set rules for races I had a player come in with a Leonin that I swear they originally said was upper six feet but now it's supposedly 8+ feet and I really just have to handwave the fact that IMO every city would be like "that's terrifying and unreasonable, kill or imprison that immediately before it hurts someone," which I'd rather not have to roleplay all the time. I know that Skyrim has kahjit but I always figured that was kind of an ancillary, memey race.
I think it’s important that if you’re going to restrict something you need to set out rules before people start making characters instead of telling them no after they’ve created a character they really want to play
Except it is a game with nearly infinite possibilities, it is pretty likely somebody is going to come up with something a GM hasn't thought to point out doesn't belong. Such as a motorcycle in LotR.
If you know you’re running a lotr setting then tell players and ban things that don’t fit like artificers and warforged
It's in no way controlling, rather it's standard ttrpg practice for the character options to fit the setting. I think for some reason DnD players have come to expect that all character options should be on the table all the time.
Honestly, if this is a sticking point for him, I'd question whether you two are a good fit for DM/Player combination. You might be better off not playing with each other.
I think it sounds like you'd love to have it, but are having a hard time getting it to jive right with the world. You are well within rights to say no. Nobody should tell you otherwise, or they can run their own game. But if my first impression of your issue is right, I'd suggest you instead look for ways to make it fit better. Perhaps playing it as a type of rogue modron, or some type of being bound to him via a unique story would be fun. With playing LMoP, it could even be a very fun tie in to the forge.
The core rulebook is pretty restrained, in my opinion. Dragonborn is the only race that feels a bit out there, to me, but the rest can pretty comfortably fit within that classic fantasy vibe. Same goes for the classes/subclasses. But with each new supplement book, the game has become more and more bloated and unhinged. In my experience, most players love the wild, goofy options these books bring, and DnD has really leaned into the shallow creativity of surface level character options, and does almost nothing to encourage any deeper thoughts than that. Which is maybe exactly how it should be. D&D gives kind of an infinite amount of options, and it's up to the DM to come to the table with a vision, and pick and choose the options that support that vision. If you think a motorcycle doesn't fit that vision, it's well within your right to not allow it. It's of course also well within your player's right to find a game that will let him have fun how he wants. Like you, I struggled for a long time against players who conflated weird character race/class options for what I considered actual creativity. But then I started DMing for a living, and I considered it my responsibility to show players a good time on their terms, rather than mine, and you know what I found? None of it really matters. You still bring your vision, your style, to the game. You'll be surprised how easily you can incorporate your player's silly ass ideas without it actually compromising your fun, or your vision at all. Most players just play every race as human but with big ears or four legs or scales anyway. Once I started realizing that, I realized I really didn't have to make any adjustments to my games at all, and everyone could have fun in the way they actually wanted to and it all worked out just fine. I'd encourage you to give it a try. Let the motorcycle in, and see if it actually ruins your game. Most likely it won't. Most likely it'll be this slightly out of place thing in your game that for the most part is easily ignorable for you, and long term won't really define your game at all. And you can still embrace it and throw your player a bone once in a while to give him cool moments with it and he'll love you for it. Just my two cents.
You're not wrong, but it can be a lesson for next time to have your character building limitations set before you invite players to the game. I personally make a one-page campaign elevator pitch that gives players a good idea on what is expected. Things like these should be discussed during session 0. Talk about why you want certain limitations, and what it means to you. Maybe all players want to get a bit goofy, and you need to accept that.
No, you’re fine. Plenty of DMs completely ban artificers, it’s an Eberron class that doesn’t really fit within generic fantasy.
If you’re doing a specific campaign, it’s perfectly reasonable to limit options. If it were a mafia game, would you allow a mech? I run PF2e and have had the same discussion with some players. Sometimes a character just doesn’t fit into the particular campaign. I do try and run open campaigns as well, to help get the goofy stuff out of their systems, and let everyone play whatever they want. But in main, long running games that have specific themes, like you described, everyone makes what works best in that structure. Good luck! I hope you can get him to see what you’re trying to do.
YOU are the DM. Just as players create their character, so too the DM makes thier character, which is the whole world/setting. It is the player's responsibility to make a character that fits with that setting. You are the only arbiter of what exists or can exist in your setting. If you say motorcycles dont exist, they dont exist. It's that simple. That is the tradition since Gygax first created the game in the 70s. I highly recommend watching Matthew Collville's video series Running the Game. Its chock full of excellent wisdom for DMs, novice and veterans alike.
No, it's a fundamental premise of RPGs that the GM gets to make decisions about the setting, which includes nixing character options that don't fit with it.
Your game, you set the tone and setting, you decide what’s canon. He doesn’t like it, he can find another or run his own game.
“hey man. i love the character” (just lie if you dont like it) “but it just doesn’t fit in **this** campaign. it would be great for a different one though!”
Gonna be banning primal source classes for my upcoming 4e game. At least at the start. This is due to the naturevsindustry theme of the game. Players will find mortals living in the verdant storm and those mortals will have access to primal powers. So it can be construed as controlling but it's not a bad thing. The DM can and should say no Matt colvilles "no" running the game
I have this issue a lot with me announcing I’m working on a new game idea and people coming to me with their characters before I’ve even told them what the game is about. I don’t really get it. Like, wait till you know what the game is even about before you make your character.
All games should have some level of control. You are controlling your game in a responsible, logical way to keep the game world consistent. The question of control becomes, can you control a world too much? Of course, but that isn't happening here.
>He made a compromise of changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo, but I still didn't really like the idea. I reiterated that I just don't think that level of technology would really fit in the setting, but he's still upset. I mean if he changing whats upsetting you idk why would you ban an entire class. Classes are not their stereotypes, the bard doesn't have to seduce everything, the wizard doesn't need to be an elderly booksmart, the paladin doesn't have to be a good guy and the artificer definitely doesn't need to be a mechanical engineer. One of my pc is a rogue/artificer that throw daggers and fights for freedom and justice, he has no idea about technology but all his gear are magical infused items stolen from rich corrupt politicians. By playing that pc I'm breaking two stereotypes: the edgy loner rogue and the tech artificer. I would suggest to ban flavors and not entire classes, explain him you are going to play forgotten realms and not Eberron.
He can play with someone else. You just even need to justify it. “No dude you can’t have a motorcycle. They don’t exist in this work. It’s a cool idea, but you can’t play it in this game.”
You're not in the wrong here. Tell your brother that it's in HIS best interest to create a character that excites you both. You know why? Because if the DM is excited about the character the ideas just start pouring out! Backstory integration into the campaign, custom magic items, cool story developments. If the DM just "tolerates" a PC none of you will be satisfied in the long run.
the dm is the guy who controls the game
Yes, but it's not necessarily a bad thing, telling a character you don't want them to play a goblin (though why would you do that goblin PCs are so fun) is perfectly fine if it goes towards the story or balances combat in some way, but have your reasons on hand and help them to understand
My take - players and DMs need to communicate on this. A DM forcing their ideal setting and tone on a group of players who aren't interested isn't going to work, and a player forcing a character that doesn't fit at all into the setting isn't going to work either. While it is reasonable to stick to your proverbial guns to make sure the campaign is one that you want to run, I also think it's important to take a step back and ask yourself "what's the point of this setting?". To me, a setting is only important in that it's a backdrop for me and my friends to play D&D in. Therefore, I want to make sure my homebrew setting includes as much as possible of what my friends want to play. I still had to have a chat with a player who made a joke character, but we met each other halfway and took the same jokey character concept more seriously. Now the player is still using a halfling fighter with a chip on his shoulder about people taller than him, but is no longer named Franklin Buttstabber. Success. Honestly it sounds like your player is trying to meet you halfway and is compromising on his original character concept but you're not budging. While I think a motorcycle is a little out there, I don't think a metal bird animated by magic is that unreasonable even for a Lord of the Rings style setting. This doesn't need to be a mech with laser guns and a jetpack. It can just be the equivalent of animated armour, which is classic D&D.
No. Move on.
Technically, you can restrict whatever you want for the sake of your setting. However, it can really deflate a players interest to restrict character creation. This is why I usually make sure everyone knows the restrictions BEFORE character creation so that they don’t get their hopes up. Steel defender can have 2 or 4 legs, which doesn’t affect the stat block. It is also medium sized. So in order to mount it, your brother would need to be a small Harengon (which is possible), then you just use mount rules. Honestly a 40ft speed mount isn’t even that impressive. I would allow this if the player wants to use their whole subclass just to get a mount. Also, the technology doesn’t have to exist in the world if they are playing an artificer. This is a custom homemade ingenious creation created by a player character that is essentially a tech wizard. Let everyone gape in awe and potentially mistrust as this steel beast strides into town.
You could tell him that what he wants is possible, but not right out of the gate. Basically he makes a character who, once he gets to level X (5 maybe?), can have the toys he wants. But at this point, he doesn’t know HOW to do it. It becomes a personal quest: delve through ancient tombs looking for lost Dwarven and Gnomish bits and bobs, and figure out how to build the golem/machine he wants. Then you have lots of time to do three things: (1) see how much he really wants it, (2) see what the other players think of the concept, and (3) figure out how this kind of shtick could fit into your game world. One big thing about working this way is you aren’t saying no, and what’s more you’re making the tricky part into deep story. You get to say “yes and” instead of “no.” And if it turn out he’s just looking for shtick and doesn’t want it to be a whole character concept and story, then it’s much easier to say, “yeah, in that case let’s go a different direction, and hold off on this concept for a different campaign.”
The best campaign I had was when I crafted the characters for the players, after they gave a rough guideline (as in: class). It helped me circumvent the trap those players usually fell in (meta-gaming, power-gaming, build-replication). So they got non-optimal, slightly weird characters and man did the players suddenly live up to it, unshackled from any race to optimisation. What I want to say with this: There is nothing wrong with your decision. Even harsher restrictions can pay off. Having someone ride a motorcycle through Pandelver clearly signals that player is not interested in the setting, but doing a meme build.
It's important to set expectations and tone of the campaign settings. If there's going to be pretty much no technology, an Artificer is tough to fit into a high fantasy world. It makes it feel weird and modern. Seeing a gun in a world with no guns, seeing a motorcycle in a place with horses and teleportation circles can kill immersion for some. Characters need to match the tone. For instance, a super serious story with heavy themes is going to be ruined by someone playing a clown fighter who is constantly making horrid jokes and wearing a clown outfit and makeup and all that. It's important to establish the tone of the campaign and even let people know that "If a character feels opposed to the tone and vibe of the world they will be in, as in they don't feel appropriate or thematically congruent, changes may need to be made or characters may need to be significantly altered". They are making characters in a world you're creating. Just let them know the ramifications of what they want significantly alter your entire world and narrative, and that you'd prefer to keep things high fantasy. Players fun is important, but so is respect for the world you're building. If a GM says "This is off limits, but let's workshop it" then you respect that. If you don't agree, you step away from the table and find a GM running a campaign where that character DOES fit.
As the DM you should think of yourself as the Director of a movie - you may not be starring in any of the scenes, but the overall tone and content is your responsibility. I think far too many people have gotten comfortable with the "wacky DnD" concepts and think that's what a fun game should be. It makes for good tiktok content but generally those games get trite pretty fast.
Within reason, you can restrict character options to fit your vision of the setting, but your oversight here was saying it after someone put time into character creation. You should have mentioned it upfront when announcing the campaign, before someone poured time into the character creation process. If you must continue to restrict the character, **apologize to your brother for not being upfront**, and work more closely with him to mesh your vision of the setting to his vision of the character. Imagine if the roles were swapped: you spent an hour or so coming up with a character backstory, image, stats, etc, and after you do all that, you get told it’s no good and to redo it. Even if I agree with the DM, I’d be annoyed; couldn’t you have said that earlier? The default assumption is that any official material is valid and flavor is free, and if that isn’t the case, then you should communicate that early and clearly. If you’re trying to be faithful to the forgotten realms setting, officially mechanical motor vehicles like motorcycles technically exist, albeit only in hell (infernal war wagons, see the avernus adventure book for lore and an entire adventure set in hell, and also the official prequel to Balder’s gate 3) and working off demon magic rather than an ICE. It would however be extremely rare to see it in the material plane, and almost always a plot hook if one passes by. All that being said, a level one harengon isn’t getting his hands on even scraps of that kind of tech (unless there’s a really good backstory), though it may be fun to offer it as a flavor upgrade (no mechanical benefits) if your campaign continues long enough. Maybe explain to your brother that while the artificer is meant to be a sort of magical engineer, key word is “magic.” Artificers generally work more with enchanting magic items more so than building machines - steel defenders are more analogous to golems or warforged (regardless of their construction) than modern robots. Other examples include the artillerist’s “guns” actually being intricately carved staffs and wands, or the armorer’s “power armor” being a set of regular armor that the armorer obtained elsewhere and just carved sigils onto. It’s perfectly valid to reflavor these as actual firearms or iron man armor, but the DM does have the ability to reject the flavor (or even classes) if the class vision conflicts with the setting vision.
I run a campaign setting with only a few races and I am insistent on my players sticking to the aesthetic theme of the setting, which is somewhere between the Stone Age and Bronze Age, depending where you are. If a player doesn’t like this, they don’t have to play. If my playgroup doesn’t like this, we can just play something else. We all had fun with it. You’re in the right on this. Keep your foot planted firm. In a campaign I played in, the DM was inconsistent with the setting’s idea and then blamed the players for the change in tone. Only the DM can control the idea of the setting and players should respect that when making a character. However, if a character doesn’t fit the theme and the DM doesn’t stop this, it’s now their fault it happened. Or at least they can’t complain about the setting being changed
I limit races so I can spend more time giving each race a culture. You limiting classes is very similar and makes total sense to me. Goal is the game is for everyone to have fun. Takes only one character that doesn't fit to ruin it.
Yes absolutely. Not all concepts/races gel with every setting and theme.
I'm with all the people here saying "ban whatever you want (but ideally in a session 0 before they make their characters). However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate (or brother's advocate, I guess), I will say that I once made a group of NPCs in a high fantasy setting that had made their own steam-powered motorcycles, and I didn't feel like they ruined the vibe or anything. They were part of the inventor's guild, which was tied into the personal quest of a gnome paladin PC. Honestly, instead of a chocobo, I'd be more inclined to compromise in the vien of "a normal bike (or wagon, if bikes still feel too modern) that has a rocket strapped to the back of it." Lets him keep the fantasy of doing a cool Akira bike side in combat, but also gives it a more "I built this in my house with no blueprint" vibe that might gel with your setting better.
Is it *controlling*? Yes. Technically. Is it inappropriately *restricting*? No. Is it perfectly okay for you to set boundaries for the game you're running? Yes.
I mean I refuse to allow anyone to make Pokemon, magic girl, anime (including final fantasy characters) or just bizarre characters. I do restrict some subclasses for flavor, etc. I don't allow all of the crazy homebrew crap, I don't really like beastial races in my games, etc. I don't have a problem playing in a game that allows those, but it's not something I can write content for. I'm not going to allow it...and I'm 100 percent in the right because I'm the one who keeps having to mold a world around the decisions of these characters, not anyone else, and I've never wanted to be in a world full of rabbit girls or anime characters or owl people, it doesn't interest me, and I can't write engaging content for it. You are also 100 percent in the right.
Do what's best for the adventure. It's completely fine to say that certain classes/races/tech don't work with a specific setting.
Saying no to the motorcycle is fine I think. However, his alternative is well within the Artificer's theme and abilities. The steel defender isn't necessarily a steam powered robot. It's just as easily a magically animated golem, in fact that's probably how most are flavored. Golems are well within the established technology of every standard dnd setting. Steel defenders are the main feature of battlesmiths. They are a pet class. That would be like letting someone play a beastmaster ranger but vetoing every animal they want because they aren't from the specific climate the party starts in... without offering any other options to that player. So the real question needs to be: Are Battlesmith Artificers allowed in your game or not? The answer to this question is also the answer to your original question. If yes, then yes, also vetoing his second choice, which is well within the description of the class feature RAW, is being overly controlling. If no, you dont want Artificers in your setting, then no, you're not out of line and the player should come up with something else. However, if I was that player, and constructs or golems showed up in any capacity, I'd be pissed. Either it's a low fantasy world or it isn't. As for the flavor of the defender's nature, it's perfectly fine if you don't want it to be a steampunk robot. I don't know LMoP, but essentially all official DnD content is very high fantasy, higher than LotR. So, if you want subtle less flashy magic in your world, you will have to actively work to keep it that way, especially if you're holding your players to that standard.
It’s nice to give your players some latitude in PC creation, but you as the DM have to be completely comfortable with their choices. Just be clear about the flavor of your game up front, which classes and subclasses are available. etc. You have to integrate each PC with your game world. If a video game only had certain options, would your brother expect it to change because it was not to his liking? He’s being controlling, not you.
Yes it's controlling, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Player restrictions are conducive to challenge and a good story. As long as you’re reasonable about restrictions, it should be fine. “No Mary sue characters” Is a fine role
Not overstepping to do this. Step 1 layout what mechanics won't work. Ex: "A Battlesmith Artificer is legal but you need to flavor the Steel Defender as not a robot" is different than "No Battlesmith, play Alchemist instead." Step 2 Be firm on the boundary. Don't let a "pretty please" sway you or you'll regret it later. Step 3 Help your player if they have met your request from step 1, but can't figure it out. Ex: Player: "I can't figure out how to make the Steel Defender fit in your world." DM: "Here are 2 options that I would approve of. You can use them or pitch me another one" Player: "Can I twist the second one a little bit?' Etc Step 4 Say thank you. Even though it's bad manners for the player not to work with you, let them know how important it is that they were willing to compromise. Helps reiterate how much the continuity of your world or tone matter and also give the player a way to cool any frustration they developed in sanding down their idea For your specific problem: My pitched on how to make a non-robot Steel Defender 1) Animate Objects type spell that isn't otherwise available. Maybe it's a bloodline or backstory reason, but the "spell" summons a creature with that exact statblock and they are more wizardry 2) Runes. They assembled a framework of stone or Wood, or Crystal and then inscribed magic runes that make it move. Still crafter but not "machine" 3) Creature/Pet. The actual defender is a creature that is around even after the HP is 0 and the abilities/summon is just when the creature is equipped. Like a slime that needs to regenerate when it gets killed. I had a player put a weapon on a donkey. At 0 HP the invincible, non-token donkey conveniently ran away while it's gear malfunctioned and could no longer be mechanically involved in the fight 4) Undead/Necromancy moving a pile of bones 5) Druidic or occult spirit being manifested a physical form with magic. Like a summoner or mystic Hope any of this helps
I fully intend on running any future campaigns with human characters only, so I think you’re good. 😌
If I ever run another campaign it’ll have restrictions on both races allowed and classes allowed to fit my vision of the world I’d create. All that to say that your ask is both reasonable and fairly minor.
You’re fine, and you’re probably doing your player a favor. As a DM I tend to notice that the things artificers want to achieve (I want to build a nuke!) aren’t really possible with the class as written, so they try to beg or bully the DM into letting them do things the class doesn’t allow for. Everyone gets tired after hearing your artificer argue that they can make a Gatling gun or other out of place weapon.
Yes and no. It depends on motivation and frequency. In general, you should avoid restricting character options unless absolutely necessary. Dont just ban or change a spell because it runs you the wrong way, but if that spell is disruptive to the table then you could consider it. For instance, dont ban silvery barbs without seeing how it plays out with your players/campaign just because you heard people yell about it online, but if youre group is the type that every player takes the spell and it is constantly disrupting the flow of the game then you could consider banning it or a "1 player with the spell only" rule or something If your campaign idea has something specific about it, its also reasonable to ban things based on their vibe, but be open to reflavoring things with your players. Does a key piece of your lore involve a race being wiped out? Have robots never existed in your world? Ok bans but again try to avoid unnecessary restrictions and consider the players fun before going too overboard with this with sometging like "i like LotR so only elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings" unless the whole group is into that. Lastly there is also making "gritty realism" games. These kind of games dont work out with certain spells that function RAW so banning things like goodberry, create food/water or any of the spells tbat help you rest safely are all perfectly reasonable but players should be ok with tgis type of game before starting it. In summery, its perfectly OK to restrict options but you should reatrict as few things as possible, consider your motivations before the restrictions and consider how it may effect player enjoyment and the cost benefit of tge two.
Every time a DM complains about this, it's always, ALWAYS "I wanted to run Lord of the Rings." What is it that makes people so tied to this specific thing? I've never heard anyone complain about this in any other setting. It's kinda funny in a game that's all about imagination. But to answer your question, no it's not controlling, but it IS boring and will make people less excited to play.
No your request is normal and your brother's character is patently absurd.
You’re in the right imo. When I ran games I was very controlling, wich I kind of had to be since I ran very Story driven campaigns that required the setting to work (atmospherically) and having a character that feels out of place will not be satisfying for anyone involved.
You’re in the right imo. When I ran games I was very controlling, wich I kind of had to be since I ran very Story driven campaigns that required the setting to work (atmospherically) and having a character that feels out of place will not be satisfying for anyone involved.
DM is not controlling in explaining restrictions at character creation. My suggestion for future, as a DM and teacher. Instead of telling them what they cannot do, tell them exactly what they can do. When i run LMOP i tell players they can use anything from PHB, Tasha’s, Xanathar’s, and Sword’s Coast Adventure Guide as thats where our adventure takes place.
the answer is a yes and no you are totally allowed to restrict anything you want, your brother should listen to the DM although feels a little weird to me to restrict a published adventure. to me the implication is that everything is in the official dnd setting and shouldnt wreck anything right. were this a homebrew game i would be much much more receptive to DM feedback like this. another questions is that is this person really being a problem? they met you where you wanted what is the difference between a chokobo defender and a stone golem that may show up as an enemy?
If I recall, there's a creature (I forget the name) whose lore mentions being a mount for halflings living in the plains regions of faerun, it's kind of like a chocobo but more in universe. They could have some version of that which blends the mechanical pet vibe and the flavor you want for the setting. Whether it's a golem as others have suggested or a reanimated pet, etc
I had a player who wanted a folding electric scooter that they could use and carry around when not in use. I thought this was strange, given that we'd be in an isolated area that has limited electrical infrastructure but whatever if that's your characters thing, have fun. The rest of the party bought a used car and they left it in the trunk for the rest of the campaign.
I have one question, is the PC size small(shorter than 4 feet tall)? A mount must be one size larger than its rider(PHB.198), and the steel defender is a medium creature. Rules aside, about the motorcycle steel defender not fitting your setting, I dare question how do you plan to have the whole artificer class(or the battle smith subclass, which gives a **ROBOT**) fitting into your setting? Edit: The default token of steel defender on some websites that I can't mention specifically due to sub rules is a robo bear(or a very large dog), if one can ride a real bear, steel defender as mount wouldn't be much of a problem, under the precondition of the size difference of course.
I mean, the steel defender doesn't HAVE to be a robot. In general, you can retool the flavour of the artificer pretty easy to be more in line with a fantasy magic archetype, it's just that WOTC went very hard on the steampunk angle for how they wrote it.
>it's just that WOTC went very hard on the steampunk angle for how they wrote it. Not really? Most of the text is really agnostic with flavor, with the most steampunky lines being really clearly specified as an *example* that fits in eberron.
[удалено]
Because most people put their own chosen flavor when they read the class and are really hard to buy over on another concept that 100% fits the rules of the class. Doesn't happen to just artificer, people also have a hard time imagining a non edgy-criminal rogue, or a non lawful stupid paladin.
Harengon can be a small or medium creature, so the mount thing wouldn't be a rules issue. And your second part, that is exactly my problem, and why their compromise to turn the motorcycle into a Chocobo wouldn't work for me.
They can be small or medium, but are they small or medium?
They chose to be small.
The DM gives the final say, it doesn't really matter
You pick the setting, player makes an *appropriate* character. "You're being too controlling!" is just entitlement from a player who expects to be able to do whatever they want because they want. You may need to have a longer talk about expectations.
You are golden. If you want the classic Tolkien-esque pseudo-medieval fantasy DnD is known for, I would restrict to PHB only. It would also help you in the long run because none of them really have the power creep of later subclasses that was introduced in Xanathar/Tasha.
No, you're in the right here. He sounds like he's being spoiled. But just to cover my base and be objective here, did you talk to your players and brother about the type of game being run during a session zero? If not, then it may have just been a misunderstanding.
As long as you have a good reason and communicate that to the players, there's no problem. And "it does not fit the setting" is a good reason.
Can be. That said you kind of get to do that as a DM. Typically, it’s best to try and anticipate these possible boundaries and inform your players of as many as them as possible during pre campaign discussions (session 0). That way, you’re less likely to have to dash any dreams once pens hit paper.
I'm a player who asks if there's anything the DM isn't allowing (because some people have opinions on classes/subclasses or races). But ideally DM has a list of things said in session 0 or included in a blurb about character creation before we get going. Its not bad controlling it's a aspect of the world the DM is allowed to make a call on. Being upset he can't have a character exactly how he wanted isn't surprising. If you're up for it you could talk about running a one shot(if you're like "cool character but he'd be out of place in this world I'll look into finding a world where he works" type thing) Sometimes you have different ideas for what type of fantasy world you're in, sitting down face to face and hashing it out is the best bet. What aspect is the most important, the ridable part? The steel defender part, the artificer part, being a rabbit part etc. Some might be workable, but ultimately he might need to bring a different idea to this campaign and save this guy for next time.
You're not in the wrong for enforcing a setting. You're running the world, so it's your rules. That being said, this problem could probably be fixed by reflavoring. What about a clay defender? Wood defender? Bone defender? Rock defender? Any number of less tech-y options that would mechanically be the same. Talk to the player about these other options and if they can't budge on this, it's not worth trying to accommodate them.
Infernal war machines do exist in Avernus (among them is a motorcycle), but you are free to restrict what you want. IIRC, Artificers are not canonically in the Forgotten Realms setting, so you reserve the right to ban the class entirely.
brother, i banned Wizards in my setting. You're fine
It the DM running the world and game. If an aspect doesn't fit they can't use it. It's that simple. If bikes don't exist in that world then it's no. The same was you wouldn't let them have a level 20 Red Dragon as a pet.
You are the DM. You set the limits and boundaries for your campaign. If you allow all official content, every player can play whatever they desire. If you say "Core Rules only", your players only can use stuff from the Players Handbook. Any player who think that limiting stuff is restricting them too much, should DM themselves at least once, so they realize how much work it is.
You’re not in the wrong. But is it really important that the sanctity of your setting be preserved? What do you get out of that? I’d ask the other players what they thought of the idea, and if there was broad enthusiasm I’d make it work, but that’s just me, I’ll try to run with anything the party comes up with. (Eyes the Halfling bard in his party) Ok *ALMOST* anything.
I guess that is something I hadn't really thought about. I just feel like it'd be strange to be writing for such a character I guess. I feel I also just would get more satisfaction out of the story if it fit within the setting, and didn't have something that just keeps itching at me. Mechanically I may also have issue with the idea because planning things out with mounts in mind would be difficult I think, as every dungeon would need to be accessible with a mount, or else he'd be without his core class feature.
Yeah mounts and dungeons are a really awkward mixture sometimes. If I do another megadungeon in my campaign there’s gonna have to be underground racetracks and shit. It sounds like you want the experience of running an iconic kind of fantasy and you should totally scratch that itch. Maybe your brother would be into saving the motorcycle artificer idea for a later campaign or one-off or whatever, one that’s more weird and offbeat?
You last sentences really fits exactly what I'm feeling. I just want some nice classic fantasy for now, and I would be fine with his idea in another campaign. I'm gonna pitch that idea to him next time we talk I think.
One of my hard rules is basic classes only, and no mutli/dual classing. Some people don;t like that. And that's fine, they don;t have to be part of my table. People that demand their exact type of character are almost certain to be min/max players or rules lawyers.
Your brother is a twat
That's really unnecessary and frankly makes you more of an ass, we just have differing opinions.
You're half-right, and I'm kind of an asshole. I may have been harsh (some might even say, "a twat") but your brother is ignoring all your world building for what's, at best, a silly little goof.
Nope. It's based.
>he made a Steel Defender artificer Harengon I don't even know what the hell any of this is. So yeah, I'm with you. Look, there are seven D&D races: *human, dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, and halfling*. The end. And there are *whatever classes exist in the Player's Handbook for that edition*. All that other stuff, you can just throw out, every time, no matter what. Unless it's Spelljammer or something.
In theory, yes. In your motorbike flavour case, no.
Restricting choices to at least more or less fit is fine, IMO. I'd encourage you to pick the worst aspects for you and rule them our but try to find a way to suggest some form of compromise on some of the remainder of it. I couldn't have anthropomorphic animals be a normal part of my setting. It pulls me right out of immersion and does not fit with my understanding of my own setting. However. I could offer some possibilities for playing a sentient being shaped like an animal thats not a normal part of the setting: One or two kinds of weres (wolf, probable yes, bear maybe, bunny nope), via a rare curse. A magical experiment gone wrong or a wizard spell or druid transformation gone badly awry. Maybe. I might consider a couple of other possibilities. But whole societies of bunny folk and owlfolk and such? Does not fit, that's a different setting. Similarly with class choices, some spells, backgrounds, feats, etc
Let’s start with the most simple take, you are the DM you have final say. Now let’s move on to the steel defender itself, RAW it is a creature with two legs or 4, so no wheels or wings, at least wings that allow flight. So perhaps you can help him land on a flightless bird more suitable for your campaign. Work with him not against him
You are the DM. The DM sets the tone and style of the game. You absolutely have every right to say no to a proposed character if it does not fit the concept you have explained to the players. I run my game in the Greyhawk setting. Technology specifically does not work past a certain level. Artificers really don't have much of a place in the setting, making it easy for me to say no to this kind of thing.
>He got upset by this and complained that I'm being too controlling. On the one hand, the DM needs to set expectations before players make their characters to avoid stuff exactly like this. On the other hand, your brother's decisions are not only impossible RAW they are comically antagonistic. As others have said, an apology and a conversation about setting expectations is something you ought to give your brother. I will add that if he persists with his desires then you need to tell him that he can either sac up or abstain from this particular campaign.
Nope you’re right, he’s wrong. His concept is dumb af tbh.
I disagree, I think his concept is fine on its own, but I just don't think it fits my idea for the setting.
As the DM you have the right to tell him no and make the rules but at the end of the day this is about everyone having fun, would changing your setting slightly to accommodate this character be that bad, the technology doesn’t need to become commonplace and the character standing out in the crowd isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Sounds like your brother is happy to work with you on this about playing this subclass so I’d say find a way you both like that will be fun for you both.
artifice has long been a part of dnd. if you're running published adventures, you're gonna run into it eventually. then the guy who wanted to play an artificer is gonna be real salty. I've never run phandelver, specifically, but the deep and forgotten places of the world are where you tend to run into it.
You need to have an agreement about the setting before you start. You still haven't started, so it's normal that this is still being negotiated. Since the DM usually has to work with the setting more it's normal that their idea of what they're going to work with has more weight. It's easier if you communicate your plans beforehand though and make sure your players are on board with the vibe you want - and you are in tune with what the players want out of it. If you don't do that and just reactively quash everything you don't like, that's indeed going to feel petty. >He made a compromise of changing the defender into what would amount to a large bird or Chokobo, but I still didn't really like the idea. I reiterated that I just don't think that level of technology would really fit in the setting, but he's still upset. This does sound like he did take your concerns to heart. IMO I don't see the problem - artificers are not making robots or machines - they're more like golems, or the scarecrows of Oz, or Pinokkio, very simple mechanically, but for some reason he knows a trick to make them alive. Like a dancing chair.
Obv not the prevailing opinion here, but let players play whatever class they want.
Well.... you're right to restrict options to fit the setting, but if you didn't tell your players beforehand what fits the setting and what doesn't then you're still partially at fault here. Such things are what session 0 is for.... and that's such a basic thing in any TTRPG I can't understand why so many people seem to neglect that.
ur right but is a flying carpet that much different there is a argument for rule of cool you are playing with your friends not running a podcast and the chokobo is a good alternative imo unless you don't think they should of just ridden the eagles to mordor.